7 ms·

Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised m

Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised maybe it is too late.

jl2718 5y ago
Well obviously it’s not working so maybe we need some other right to make sure we can retain that one. Hmmm... wonder if anybody thought of that...
Applejinx 5y ago
That gives rise to the fair question of, 'is free speech the only law that exists?' To what extent do all other considerations go by the wayside in order to draw a bright line sanctioning ALL possible expressions of ideas in speech, by definition rendering them immune from any sort of judgement or consequence? I think there's a fair amount of existing law that's made rather ridiculous by this position. In particular, the whole notion of conspiracy goes out the window when it's by definition not possible to share in responsibility for an act by persuasion. I'm not even sure it's possible to extort: if you can plausibly say you will wreak mayhem on a person for failing to comply, and you do so, and they comply rather than get mayhem wrought upon them, you've got what you want but you have never done more than speak. Your actions have never once crossed the line. The fact that your speech functioned as plausible threats is irrelevant: it was always and only speech, because nobody called you on it.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
seventytwo 5y ago
There’s lots of “speech” that’s already illegal in the US. Please, define where the actual line should be.
- insert_coin 5y ago
  What speech is illegal? What is the list of words not allowed by law to be spoken?
  - philipkglass 5y ago
    Inciting "imminent lawless action" through speech is illegal in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
    - mnouquet 5y ago
      This hardly qualifies as "lots of speech".
      - seventytwo 5y ago
        So explain why those are ok to censor, but others aren’t…
        mnouquet 5y ago
        I never said it was ok to censor, merely that it didn't qualify to "lots of".
  - retrac 5y ago
    There are laws regulating speech in some way or form regarding: Directly inciting violence. Threats. Various advertising and commerce standards. Specific details on how to carry out crimes. Publishing or modifying copyrighted works without permission. Photographing your ballot. Obscenity. Child pornography. Non-consensual pornography of adults. Laws enabling time and place restrictions with protests. Libel. Trade secrets. Invasion of privacy. Sedition. Various laws restricting things tending to fraud. Various national security laws. Regulations on the content of over-the-air broadcasters. Regulation and restriction of political advertising. Laws against foreign propaganda. And probably some other things. A holistic theory for what should or shouldn't be covered has always escaped me.

Free speech is the only “right” that matters. Thoughtcrime should not be allowed to be prosecuted, mob lynching is not justice. But if the ACLU is compromised maybe it is too late.

jl2718 5y ago

Well obviously it’s not working so maybe we need some other right to make sure we can retain that one. Hmmm... wonder if anybody thought of that...

Applejinx 5y ago

That gives rise to the fair question of, 'is free speech the only law that exists?' To what extent do all other considerations go by the wayside in order to draw a bright line sanctioning ALL possible expressions of ideas in speech, by definition rendering them immune from any sort of judgement or consequence? I think there's a fair amount of existing law that's made rather ridiculous by this position. In particular, the whole notion of conspiracy goes out the window when it's by definition not possible to share in responsibility for an act by persuasion. I'm not even sure it's possible to extort: if you can plausibly say you will wreak mayhem on a person for failing to comply, and you do so, and they comply rather than get mayhem wrought upon them, you've got what you want but you have never done more than speak. Your actions have never once crossed the line. The fact that your speech functioned as plausible threats is irrelevant: it was always and only speech, because nobody called you on it.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

seventytwo 5y ago

There’s lots of “speech” that’s already illegal in the US. Please, define where the actual line should be.

insert_coin 5y ago
What speech is illegal? What is the list of words not allowed by law to be spoken?
- philipkglass 5y ago
  Inciting "imminent lawless action" through speech is illegal in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - mnouquet 5y ago
    This hardly qualifies as "lots of speech".
    - seventytwo 5y ago
      So explain why those are ok to censor, but others aren’t…
      - mnouquet 5y ago
        I never said it was ok to censor, merely that it didn't qualify to "lots of".
- retrac 5y ago
  There are laws regulating speech in some way or form regarding: Directly inciting violence. Threats. Various advertising and commerce standards. Specific details on how to carry out crimes. Publishing or modifying copyrighted works without permission. Photographing your ballot. Obscenity. Child pornography. Non-consensual pornography of adults. Laws enabling time and place restrictions with protests. Libel. Trade secrets. Invasion of privacy. Sedition. Various laws restricting things tending to fraud. Various national security laws. Regulations on the content of over-the-air broadcasters. Regulation and restriction of political advertising. Laws against foreign propaganda. And probably some other things. A holistic theory for what should or shouldn't be covered has always escaped me.