heywood on 19/2/2021 at 18:40
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
No, the answer isn't obvious.
So, ordering someone else to commit a murder is a case where free speech doesn't apply.
What if the person just suggests the action? "I would like it if Johnny weren't around to bother me", knowing that their henchmen will interpret that as a request to kill Johnny. Is that protected by freedom of speech?
Again, what if you bully someone into committing suicide? You didn't order their death, but your words caused it.
What if you trick someone into doing something dangerous, because you tell them it's a good idea and they trust you, and it leads to their death? You didn't kill them, but you used your words to cause their death.
What if you tell a group of your armed supporters that you want them to storm a building, resulting in many deaths? You told them to do it, even if you didn't explicitly tell them to kill people.
My point still stands: freedom of speech is
a right, but it is not and should never be
the only right, that is held up on a pedestal above all others.
I hate this notion that one person's right to speech is more important than another person's right to not be killed, injured, or harassed. Anyone who thinks that has some seriously messed-up priorities.
Let me answer your absurdity with an equal one. How can a law be unconstitutional if the constitution protects freedom of speech? A law is just words, right?
SubJeff on 19/2/2021 at 19:09
It's obvious that there isn't complete freedom of speech.
You can't impersonate a police officer. You can't shout fire in a crowded place for a joke. You can't incite someone to commit a crime.
But you know there are specific exceptions Nameless, so why are you talking this line?
heywood on 19/2/2021 at 21:03
If I order someone to commit murder, the method through which I conveyed the order doesn't matter. I could speak it, write it, gesture it, draw a picture, make a play about it, sing a song. I could just toss some money on the table with a picture and say nothing. The act of speaking is not the crime. The crime is proxy murder.
Same with all the other hypotheticals. The act of speaking is never the crime. Criminality comes from what you're trying to accomplish through speaking.
So it's not really an exception to freedom of speech, unless you insist on an absurdly literal definition of speech, which is not how we interpret our Bill of Rights.
My law example was meant to illustrate that words don't equal speech. I could have picked any number of other examples like driving directions, food labels, instruction manuals, etc.
Nameless Voice on 19/2/2021 at 22:16
Quote Posted by heywood
Let me answer your absurdity with an equal one. How can a law be unconstitutional if the constitution protects freedom of speech? A law is just words, right?
Well, by following the line of the people who keep proclaiming that the right of free speech supersedes all others, then it wouldn't be possible. It's as ludicrous as anything else they defend in the name of free speech.
People here (and in other places) are defending things like spreading bigotry and hatred and inciting riots and lynchings as protected by free speech and I really don't see much difference between inciting a mob to kill someone, and directly ordering their death.
Trump incited a riot which lead to deaths, that should clearly be a criminal offence, yet people cite freedom of speech.
He also made someone kill themselves by drinking bleach, that's plain murder, and yet nothing is coming of it.
Those are extreme cases leading to deaths, but if people accept the premise there, then it should also apply to other places.
If ordering someone to kill someone else through your words is a crime, not because the words are a crime, but because the caused action
is, then the same should apply to, for example, racial discrimination (which is also a crime). So, someone who incited racial hatred should be criminally liable for all the acts of discrimination-by-protected-characteristic that they cause. And it's often more than just mere discrimination that these people are inciting.
But really, tl;dr: please stop trying to use freedom of speech to excuse the inexcusable. I'll also add this wise quote from a forgotten source:
Quote:
Defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
SubJeff on 19/2/2021 at 23:20
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
People here... ...are defending things like... ...inciting riots and lynchings as protected by free speech
No one is doing that here.
Quote:
Trump incited a riot which lead to deaths, that should clearly be a criminal offence, yet people cite freedom of speech.
The incitement wouldn't be protected by free speech. This all hinges on whether what he said WAS incitement.
Quote:
He also made someone kill themselves by drinking bleach, that's plain murder, and yet nothing is coming of it.
Imma need some evidence for that.
Quote:
So, someone who incited racial hatred should be criminally liable for all the acts of discrimination-by-protected-characteristic that they cause
.
Well, ahem, here in good old Blighty it is a crime to incite racial hatred. I can't speak for other places with daft laws.
And you're misusing that quote. The quote is correct, but no one is defending something in and of itself on the basis that it's free speech. It can be a crock of crap but still be allowed because of free speech. It's still a crock though.
Nameless Voice on 20/2/2021 at 00:22
Quote Posted by SubJeff
You can't actually link Rush to deaths can you? He's not done anything illegal in that sense, despite talking a lot of hateful rubbish for a long time. That's freedom of speech for you and you loonie lefty nuts seem to want to curtail that.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Free speech can be vile and hateful.
Here are your own words where you are directly defending someone inciting hatred and violence by referencing free speech - that he hasn't technically done anything illegal.
In theory, I could re-interpret the first quote as you saying that the free speech laws in the USA are bad
because what he did wasn't illegal, but that would kind of be at odds with the second half of the same sentence where you then decry people for wanting to curtail free hate speech.
Not the first time it's been done, either in this thread or in others here.
Cipheron on 20/2/2021 at 05:05
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
Here are your own words where you are directly defending someone inciting hatred and violence by referencing free speech - that he hasn't technically done anything illegal.
In theory, I could re-interpret the first quote as you saying that the free speech laws in the USA are bad
because what he did wasn't illegal, but that would kind of be at odds with the second half of the same sentence where you then decry people for wanting to curtail free hate speech.
Not the first time it's been done, either in this thread or in others here.
You're making some solid points there.
So the argument basically boils down to the idea that Rush Limbaugh didn't say any technically illegal, despite saying some awful stuff, so that's just free speech. And on that basis, other people *shouldn't* say anything awful about Rush Limbaugh? Apparently.
I'd say there's a non-sequitur there. Everyone here is covered under the free speech right we just established. BTW if you have the right to mock Rush Limbaugh's death you also have the right to mock Nelson Mandela's death. So whether or not Rush was also utilizing his free speech rights is the non-sequitur. It's not a relevant point.
Really the right wing wants to be able to yell at people about stuff, and they call that free speech, but when other people yell back, they call that free speech being curtailed.
Everyone is free to mock Rush Limbaugh's death, as they are free to mock Nelson Mandela's death. The difference is the amount of people who will *mock you back* for saying that, which is also free speech in action, so the Nelson Mandela haters just know to keep their stupid mouths shut in the first place. Society promises you "free speech" they don't promise you "speech without consequences".
---
On the more targeted original point about saying you're happy that someone died, the point seems to be "you can't say that, you're meant to be all sad and shit. So I challenge your right to say it".
Calling for sanitized speech and adhering to standard of polite discourse is something the right wing pulls out extremely selectively, when they're on the back foot on some issue.
For example the recent GOP stuff about unity, bipartisanship and putting the "past" behind us. "Let's look to the future, not the past" they say, when "the past" means their coup attempt of a whole fucking 6 weeks ago. As soon as they lost power they changed tack to making it all about what great believers in cooperation they are, before the rubble had even settled from their supporters storming the capitol.
SubJeff on 20/2/2021 at 06:08
No, Nameless, talking hateful rubbish isn't the same as inciting hate.
Saying homosexuals shouldn't be in the same school as other kids because you don't want kids turned into "fags" is hateful rubbish. It's not directly inciting hate and violence though, it's just expressing a hateful opinion.
There's a lot of fine lines here, some of which would be argued in court.
But yes, in the USA I think you can get away with saying things that you wouldn't be able to say here, and that's not a good thing imho.
And I do think that the extreme left does want to curtail free speech. Look how the loonie left will jump all over anyone who wants to even discuss certain topics and try to "cancel" them.
SubJeff on 20/2/2021 at 06:13
Quote Posted by Cipheron
You're making some solid points there.
So the argument basically boils down to the idea that Rush Limbaugh didn't say any technically illegal, despite saying some awful stuff, so that's just free speech. And on that basis, other people *shouldn't* say anything awful about Rush Limbaugh? Apparently.
Wrong.
Quote:
I'd say there's a non-sequitur there. Everyone here is covered under the free speech right we just established.
Yeah, no one said otherwise.
Quote:
Really the right wing wants to be able to yell at people about stuff, and they call that free speech, but when other people yell back, they call that free speech being curtailed.
This isn't even a topic on the agenda.
Quote:
Everyone is free to mock Rush Limbaugh's death
Sure. And?
Quote:
On the more targeted original point about saying you're happy that someone died, the point seems to be "you can't say that, you're meant to be all sad and shit. So I challenge your right to say it".
No ones rights have been challenged.
I just said it was in poor taste to be happy someone had died. That's got nothing to do with your rights.
You boys sure do love a strawman up in here.
nemyax on 20/2/2021 at 07:20
Quote Posted by Tocky
My heart bleeds that you can't say anything you want without someone else being able to respond to you using that same right. The horror.
Respond all you want, I'm all for debate. But some of you guys and june glooms might lose their jobs without debate if they voiced an incorrect opinion about BLM. I would not.