Comment by UncleEntity
2 months ago
> Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws are arbitrary.
The third rule follows from the second, the government isn't allowed to curtail speech except under extraordinary circumstances which has been whittled down to basically "panic and disorder" and "fighting words". The other two are civil torts if I'm not mistaken, you can't be arrested for slander or libel. There's others but they are extremely limited.
> Firstly, the fire thing is a myth.
Go spread panic and see how fast you get charged with disorderly conduct or whatever the equivalent local statute is. Bonus points if someone is harmed by your actions.
> Secondly, so we're just quibbling on "overriding" then?
No, the Supreme Court has some pretty hard and fast rules on this.
> There's others but they are extremely limited.
By the laws that people write which the article proposes to change.
The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes.
The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to things which hold no legitimate public value like child pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like what these advertisers say while those other ones are fine because of whatever reasons.
They can change the laws but the courts place the burden on the government to prove that the problem can't be solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without making the targeted speech illegal.
> The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes.
Sure you can, you just have to alter one big law.
1 reply →