Comment by cbuq
9 years ago
If you are referring to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me", clearly you have other problems with sympathy and empathy.
Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.
9 years ago
If you are referring to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me", clearly you have other problems with sympathy and empathy.
Free speech does not protect dangerous speech.
Yes, it does. Explicitly and confirmed by several Supreme Court cases.
Here's a quick and current take on the issue from Eugene Volokh: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
That's talking about hate speech, which is absolutely covered by the first amendment.
Sufficiently dangerous speech is not protected (Schenck v. United States, Dennis v. United States). Whether or not this speech was sufficiently dangerous is a matter of debate, but the comment you're replying to is correct.
I must have misread the parent comment then.
'Fighting words' as defined by the courts is a very very narrow definition, however, and I've seen a lot of really naive comments referrencing that exemption.
I think it's important to point out that almost every time you think speech is 'fighting words', it's not.
This has been proven in the courts over and over. If some idea or words really anger or disgust you, I can almost guarantee that it's protected speech.
2 replies →
That's talking about hate speech. Explicitly dangerous speech, or 'fighting words', as acknowledged in the article, are not a protected class of speech under the First Amendment, as established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942.
To be 'fighting words', they have to be specific, actionable, and immediate. Typically, they also need to be specifically directed.
'Kill all the <insert chosen group>' is not.
'Kill those <specific bunch of persons> over there right now' is... probably...maybe.
I challenge you to find even one instance of where citation of the Chaplinksy case has ever been used ever since the ruling itself to defend the merit of a clamp down on open speech anywhere in the U.S.
It's doubtful that the case would even be decided the same way today.
2 replies →
Relevant: https://xkcd.com/1357/
For example, if you're a screenwriter in Hollywood who once said something nice about communism...oh, wait.
See, and now you're attacking the character of a person: "clearly you have other problems".
This type of psychological attack is precisely the issue at hand with counter-nazi progress online at this precise moment in time.
Uh, ad hominems didn't just appear this year in counter-nazi speech. Really: "Many sides". Further, Nazi ideology and arguments are literally ad hominems anyway...
I think we can all agree that ad hominems must be put to bed.
The problem is who defines "dangerous speech"?
Dr. King himself was labeled as "the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security"
Dr. King wasn't calling for the "cleansing" of our nation. This "but it's a slippery slope" thing is ridiculous when the analogy is to someone who was seeking equality and peace. You know, the EXACT opposite of what these idiots are doing.
Indeed, and yet Dr. King would likely have been censored on the internet by the EXACT same justification (he is dangerous to us) in the not so distant past, if the internet were around back then.
Which is why it is important to have equality of speech.
"Slippery slope" is a poor analogy for restricting speech. A more accurate analogy would be a double edged sword which cuts both ways.
2 replies →
[EDIT] whoops wrong comment. I'll re-post this up one more level in the tree. My bad.
The Supreme Court defines 'dangerous speech'. Very specifically in fact. The First Amendment is one of the most well defined of the Amendments and has tons of legal decisions surrounding it.
Perfect example of the snowflake generation.
"Free speech does not protect dangerous speech."