FREE SPEECH | Should lies be protected as free speech? / Banning protests

  • Thread starter Thread starter superrific
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 217
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
While not exactly what OP was asking, I have been thinking about this topic lately from a different perspective.

One the best parts about our Freedom of Speech was that previously our society generally used it as a means to suss out the idiots among us.

Essentially, you have right to say and believe any damn fool thing you want, but we also have the right to think you are an idiot for any nonsensical stated belief.

So, for example, flat Earth kooks... 20 years ago somebody says that and you just looked at them with a raised brow and noted to never take anything they say seriously. Now, due to the internet, that person has an entire support system of like minded kooks and is not really "judged" the same way that society used to.

I get flat Earthers are the extreme example and most of us still think they are laugh out loud stupid. But apply that broadly to Obama birthers, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, and basically the majority of what Trump espouses and my point gains validity.

It's just fucked up that we have these amazing "truth verification systems" (aka your phone) but yet have far less truth and fact in our society than ever before. Not sure how to ever fix that or even improve that, but it has made the exercise of First Amendment rights less useful to society than previously. To be clear, though, I am not in favor of any real changes to the 1st amendment, just noting how our current social order has altered some of the underlying assumptions around it.
 
While not exactly what OP was asking, I have been thinking about this topic lately from a different perspective.

One the best parts about our Freedom of Speech was that previously our society generally used it as a means to suss out the idiots among us.

Essentially, you have right to say and believe any damn fool thing you want, but we also have the right to think you are an idiot for any nonsensical stated belief.

So, for example, flat Earth kooks... 20 years ago somebody says that and you just looked at them with a raised brow and noted to never take anything they say seriously. Now, due to the internet, that person has an entire support system of like minded kooks and is not really "judged" the same way that society used to.

I get flat Earthers are the extreme example and most of us still think they are laugh out loud stupid. But apply that broadly to Obama birthers, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, and basically the majority of what Trump espouses and my point gains validity.

It's just fucked up that we have these amazing "truth verification systems" (aka your phone) but yet have far less truth and fact in our society than ever before. Not sure how to ever fix that or even improve that, but it has made the exercise of First Amendment rights less useful to society than previously. To be clear, though, I am not in favor of any real changes to the 1st amendment, just noting how our current social order has altered some of the underlying assumptions around it.
What do you mean, changes to the First Amendment? Do you mean amendments to the constitution, or changing free speech doctrine?

The First Amendment doctrine pertaining to "content based speech" is incoherent and out of control. We had four justices recently opine (thankfully in dissent) that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the city of Austin to impose special restrictions on “off-premisesign,” defined as signs that “advertis[e] a business, person, activity, goods, products, or services not located on the site where the sign is installed, or that direc[t] persons to any location not on that site.”

That is not what the First Amendment was ever intended to be, and it makes no sense at all to say that "free speech" is an impediment to combatting visual clutter. Why would Austin distinguish between on-and off-premises signs? Gee, maybe it's because businesses need to be able to identify themselves to consumers (unless they choose for special reasons not to), but if we let anyone and everyone advertise anything in a downtown area, what we get is visual clutter that bombard people in the area.

This doctrine is rapidly swallowing all of the law of the First Amendment. It is also imperiling things like securities regulation, which according to the Supreme Court's test, would be presumptively illegal. Labeling laws. Consumer warnings. Etc. The doctrine needs to be changed, stat.
 
Hard to believe Junior Kennedy is only Negative 7.
If my Maternal Grandmother-FDR Loving Boston Irish Catholic-was still alive today she would like him
Cause "Kennedy's have done so much for this country " Her words to me when discussing Chappaquiddick...

 
What do you mean, changes to the First Amendment? Do you mean amendments to the constitution, or changing free speech doctrine?

The First Amendment doctrine pertaining to "content based speech" is incoherent and out of control. We had four justices recently opine (thankfully in dissent) that it was a violation of the First Amendment for the city of Austin to impose special restrictions on “off-premisesign,” defined as signs that “advertis[e] a business, person, activity, goods, products, or services not located on the site where the sign is installed, or that direc[t] persons to any location not on that site.”

That is not what the First Amendment was ever intended to be, and it makes no sense at all to say that "free speech" is an impediment to combatting visual clutter. Why would Austin distinguish between on-and off-premises signs? Gee, maybe it's because businesses need to be able to identify themselves to consumers (unless they choose for special reasons not to), but if we let anyone and everyone advertise anything in a downtown area, what we get is visual clutter that bombard people in the area.

This doctrine is rapidly swallowing all of the law of the First Amendment. It is also imperiling things like securities regulation, which according to the Supreme Court's test, would be presumptively illegal. Labeling laws. Consumer warnings. Etc. The doctrine needs to be changed, stat.
Wasn't really going that deep in analysis, though I recognize the dangers of over applying the reach of the doctrine (see Citizens United, imo).

All I was saying is that part of the underlying basis for what I understood to a positive impact of widely allowing untrue speech has lessened in recent years.

For me it is difficult to imagine the USSCT or congress to ever fairly implement restrictions to what I deem false or untrue speech, so my comment at the end there was more of a general statement about that aspect of the issue.
 
Wasn't really going that deep in analysis, though I recognize the dangers of over applying the reach of the doctrine (see Citizens United, imo).

All I was saying is that part of the underlying basis for what I understood to a positive impact of widely allowing untrue speech has lessened in recent years.

For me it is difficult to imagine the USSC or congress to ever fairly implement restrictions to what I deem false or untrue speech, so my comment at the end there was more of a general statement about that aspect of the issue.
Juries make judgments about truth and falseness with regularity.

You are correct that the concept of a "marketplace of ideas" in which the best ideas win out is comically out of date, if it was ever really true at all.

Most modern free speech doctrine was formed on cases involving the civil rights movement in one way or another. The balance of the equities was far different then.
 
Well, it's time for SCOTUS to step up. For over a century it has deemed viewpoint discrimination to be absolutely incompatible with the First Amendment.

We have justices who think that the First Amendment prevents a city from enacting common sense sign ordinances to reduce visual clutter in urban areas. Whatever the merits of that view, it has to be the case that the First Amendment absolutely outlaws -- with no exceptions -- targeting speech by ideology. In fact, it's not only a violation of the First Amendment; it's also void for vagueness.

IF SCOTUS doesn't even try to protect us, then maybe people will realize it is irredeemable.
 
IMG_9758.jpeg

🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/they-di...b?st=gAgckq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… Charlie will be honored at a memorial service Sunday at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. The president, vice president and secretary of state will be among the speakers. What they say there will reverberate. Our political system could become even more dominated by deep, dark obsessions. Or Sunday could be a moment when Americans see people of prominence remind us that our republic’s continuance depends on debating important ideas with both passion and mutual respect.

Above all, it needs to be repeated: Violence has no role in our country’s politics. Now or ever. Reasoned discourse is essential to our democracy. Charlie Kirk understood that. Let’s hope it’s a message his eulogists honor.”
 
IMG_9758.jpeg

🎁 —> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/they-di...b?st=gAgckq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“… Charlie will be honored at a memorial service Sunday at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz. The president, vice president and secretary of state will be among the speakers. What they say there will reverberate. Our political system could become even more dominated by deep, dark obsessions. Or Sunday could be a moment when Americans see people of prominence remind us that our republic’s continuance depends on debating important ideas with both passion and mutual respect.

Above all, it needs to be repeated: Violence has no role in our country’s politics. Now or ever. Reasoned discourse is essential to our democracy. Charlie Kirk understood that. Let’s hope it’s a message his eulogists honor.”
Morgan Freeman Good Luck GIF
 
Carr on CNBC "we're not done yet" referencing changes in the media ecosystem following the election of DJT. What that specifically means is anyone's guess.
 
Per People magazine, Sinclair has stated that the only way that Kimmel will get his show back is if he publicly apologizes to Kirk and donates to TPUSA. They are airing a Kirk “tribute” in place of his show on Friday. Sinclair also thanked the FCC head for gestapoing. I wish I was joking.
 
Back
Top