Random Thread - Anything Goes
-
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
That incitement bit has me confused - If I remember I might have to look into that more.
On the surface that seems to imply that if your speak incites someone to action, your speak is no longer protected... but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
Essentially, speech that gets people to act violently against others isn't protected speech.
is the violently specifically spelled out in the Supreme Court ruling? Or only the use of the work Incitement?
That I don't know.
I never read the ruling myself, but believe when it was explained to me is "when speech leads to the potential and direct loss in life, it is not protected". For example, you can't yell fire in a theater in fear of a cause of panic and loss in life because of trampling if there really was not a fire in the theater.
-
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
That incitement bit has me confused - If I remember I might have to look into that more.
On the surface that seems to imply that if your speak incites someone to action, your speak is no longer protected... but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
Essentially, speech that gets people to act violently against others isn't protected speech.
is the violently specifically spelled out in the Supreme Court ruling? Or only the use of the work Incitement?
-
@nerdydad said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
That incitement bit has me confused - If I remember I might have to look into that more.
On the surface that seems to imply that if your speak incites someone to action, your speak is no longer protected... but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
Essentially, speech that gets people to act violently against others isn't protected speech.
is the violently specifically spelled out in the Supreme Court ruling? Or only the use of the work Incitement?
That I don't know.
I never read the ruling myself, but believe when it was explained to me is "when speech leads to the potential and direct loss in life, it is not protected". For example, you can't yell fire in a theater in fear of a cause of panic and loss in life because of trampling if there really was not a fire in the theater.
OK - if it's only limited in situations like this, I don't have a personal issue with it. but it could so easily be corrupted to basically remove the freedom of speech....
-
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@nerdydad said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
That incitement bit has me confused - If I remember I might have to look into that more.
On the surface that seems to imply that if your speak incites someone to action, your speak is no longer protected... but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
Essentially, speech that gets people to act violently against others isn't protected speech.
is the violently specifically spelled out in the Supreme Court ruling? Or only the use of the work Incitement?
That I don't know.
I never read the ruling myself, but believe when it was explained to me is "when speech leads to the potential and direct loss in life, it is not protected". For example, you can't yell fire in a theater in fear of a cause of panic and loss in life because of trampling if there really was not a fire in the theater.
OK - if it's only limited in situations like this, I don't have a personal issue with it. but it could so easily be corrupted to basically remove the freedom of speech....
It's fairly limited. The speech itself has to incite imminent lawlessness. So immediate and likely. Telling a crowd to go rob that store, and then they do so, would be caught under this law. I'm not so sure about the not-so-hypothetical Nazi situation that was presented earlier.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@rojoloco said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The great thing about free speech is that it offers no protection from the consequences of saying whatever you want. You have the right to spout off any stupid thing you want, and the rest of us have the right to pelt you with rocks, bottles, and fists.
We don't have the right to assault or physically attack anyone.
We do if they are inciting violence.
-
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
That incitement bit has me confused - If I remember I might have to look into that more.
On the surface that seems to imply that if your speak incites someone to action, your speak is no longer protected... but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
If the action is illegal, correct. Freedom of speech cannot be used to break the law.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dashrender said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
That incitement bit has me confused - If I remember I might have to look into that more.
On the surface that seems to imply that if your speak incites someone to action, your speak is no longer protected... but I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that.
If the action is illegal, correct. Freedom of speech cannot be used to break the law.
There we go. That's the line in the sand that I was looking for.
-
@rojoloco said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@dustinb3403 said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@rojoloco said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
The great thing about free speech is that it offers no protection from the consequences of saying whatever you want. You have the right to spout off any stupid thing you want, and the rest of us have the right to pelt you with rocks, bottles, and fists.
We don't have the right to assault or physically attack anyone.
Maybe "right" is the wrong word here... I meant something more like "duty" when it applies to nazis.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
-
-
@mlnews That's an interesting birth control ad
-
@mlnews said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
Them silly russians, letting their babies hammer nails into their own legs.
-
@nerdydad that's how they learn!
-
@scottalanmiller School of Hard "Knocks"? Too soon?
-
-
@nerdydad said in Random Thread - Anything Goes:
@scottalanmiller School of Hard "Knocks"? Too soon?
Nailed it.
-
-
-
-
-
This stuff right here... Find it, buy it. I found it locally, but I live a few miles from little Koreatown. It's just caramelized onion paste in a jar, but damn it adds amazing flavor.
http://cmtrading.ca/product/fried-onion-paste-namvang/
