patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,721 comments by 14,089 users - Eric Holder, The_Deplorable online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 50 - 60 of 60 Search these comments
Homeboy
2014 May 31, 6:20am
Maybe you guys are a little fixated on the one example. How about some other examples of non-protected speech:
"I'm hijacking this plane."
"This is a robbery. Everyone get down on the floor."
"I planted a bomb in the White House and it's going to go off at 5:00."
HydroCabron
2014 May 31, 6:22am
It's not an anecdote; it is a metaphor. That's obviously why you don't understand the metaphor. You think it's referring to a real-life situation, when it is actually illustrating a principle.
Yes, it's a metaphor, but I don't much care, because the metaphors and fictions become real in many minds, and give rise to the idea that such examples are not rare. For example, Scalia cited '24' in a torture opinion. We could say he did this because he is an idiot, but many, many people believe that if a situation can be acted out or described, it's real.
If we're going to ban murderous speech which can kill people, we should at least be aware of how rare or common such speech is.
"Dark side of the moon" has made many people believe there is a perpetually dark side of the moon; "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" leads to the conviction that we are ever at risk of homicidal pranksters who do this once or twice a month.
HydroCabron
2014 May 31, 6:23am
Maybe you guys are a little fixated on the one example. How about some other examples of non-protected speech:
"I'm hijacking this plane."
"This is a robbery. Everyone get down on the floor."
"I planted a bomb in the White House and it's going to go off at 5:00."
Uh, it was a metaphor, not an example.
smaulgld
2014 May 31, 6:30am
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" leads to the conviction that we are ever at risk of homicidal pranksters who do this once or twice a month.
Correct that is not the case- that is not a real and present threat that requires banning speech.
marcus
2014 May 31, 7:06am
Correct that is not the case- that is not a real and present threat that requires banning speech.
You remind me of forrest gump.
A criminal intent on causing a panic will say whatever he wants- a law against saying it won't stop him
THe yelling fire in a crowded theater example isn't meant to be about that one specific example causing panic in that specific way.
It's meant as an example proving that there are exceptions to when free speech applies. And these exceptions are the cases when any reasonable person would deem a particular expression of speech to highly risk causing violence or injuries.
People are not free to do that. We don't have complete freedom to do whatever we fucking want.
IT's not that anyone is going to make laws about what people can and can not say. But if you tell a retarded kid to kill someone, and they do, you aren't going to be able to get out of trouble by invoking your first amendment rights. IF it's a fight, and you're a bystander and you yell, "pull out your knife and stab him!" you aren't going to be able to argue your freedom of speech rights.
smaulgld
2014 May 31, 7:25am
People are not free to do that. We don't have complete freedom to do whatever we fucking want.
No rights are absolute, the courts use a balancing test that considers the individual's right vs the government's need to protect a compelling government interest.
Homeboy
2014 May 31, 12:58pm
THe yelling fire in a crowded theater example isn't meant to be about that one specific example causing panic in that specific way.
Why do I feel like we're wasting our time here? It's as though Smaulgld and Iosef are incapable of abstract thought.
marcus
2014 May 31, 1:38pm
Why do I feel like we're wasting our time here? It's as though Smaulgld and Iosef are incapable of abstract thought.
Iosef's comments are often meant to be art, so you never know. As for Smaulgld, I don't know what his point is, and I don't think he does either.
Homeboy
2014 May 31, 4:04pm
Iosef's comments are often meant to be art, so you never know.
If that's the intent, it's not very well done.
Shaman
2014 May 31, 10:46pm
I agree Patrick. People have the right to say hateful things, and I have the right to block them. But not to limit their ability to say things.
Just like flag burning. It offends many, but it is the definition of freedom to say whatever the hell you want.
A minor point: burning is the military's official means of old flag disposal. Flags that have served for a year are burned, not tossed in the trash. Which means that the burners who do it as a political statement are just about as ignorant as the people who get all offended by it.
« First « Previous Comments 50 - 60 of 60 Search these comments
The very essence of free speech is the freedom to say politically incorrect things.
Being free to say only things that are politically correct is no freedom at all.
The Wikipedia definition of hate speech is:
Italics mine. There are two big problems with legally prohibiting all such hate speech:
First, when we come to the point where mere disparagement is forbidden, we will have already murdered free speech in the name of an Islamic-like orthodoxy.
Second, the idea that certain individuals or groups are "protected", this means those individuals or groups are given greater rights than the rest of us, and that everyone else is a second-class citizen.
In America, our new unofficial Koran is that the following characteristics in minorities confer legally superiority to the rest of us and may not even be disparaged except under threat of being fired, fined, or even jailed:
"race, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation"
Though the First Amendment has not yet been official overturned, in reality, college campuses in particular routinely violate the first amendment via speech codes.
from https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus
Thank god for the ACLU. They have real integrity, and the balls to stand up for the rights of everyone and not just "protected" groups.