Free Speech

[UKMikey]

This is hilariously ironic, though.

It's quite obvious to me that the Democrats know they're going to get massive numbers of votes disqualified and their plan is to go into 2021 saying Trump stole the election.

Sorry to put you through that. Once the mask of politeness dropped I ended up putting her on mute to preserve my sanity as she had more 💩 takes than a Japanese mushroom farm.

(Re: Trump... how can you steal something you never had?!)

 

[TexRex]

Edit: This is relevant.

 

[Moglet]

I just got off a long tweet conversation with a lady who was convinced Google was the problem because they owned most of the social media platforms. When I pointed out that the government is already investigating Google from an antitrust perspective and suggested that the Florida bill is instead a politically motivated attempt to punish Twitter for expelling people she liked that break the rules, she went on a rant saying she was kicked off of the platform for calling a trans woman a man in a dress even though this was the common sense perspective a couple of years ago.

It's always personal with these people.

Spoiler: tediously long tweet coversation for anyone who cares. Some NSFW language

I can almost guarantee that she has called someone else a snowflake in the past. Yet when she gets banned for...breaking the rules...she kicks off and acts like a spoiled child. Genius. Free speech doesn't mean you can avoid the consequences of your words.

 

[TexRex]

I can almost guarantee that she has called someone else a snowflake in the past. Yet when she gets banned for...breaking the rules...she kicks off and acts like a spoiled child. Genius.

There's a long list of things they don't understand, but irony is sure to be high up on it.

 

[Keef]

I wrote down a whole big long freak-out schpiel but I'm gonna condense it down to a simple question: Who is trying to take down America? @TexRex Is it everybody, or is it everybody, because I need to know which side to be on.

I really think people need to start getting their words right here. First of all the government needs to clarify what it's doing. Secondly, they need to be very particular with their words - misinformation and disinformation are two very different things. Misinformation is annoying. Disinformation is destructive. I don't care much about misinformation. I care a lot about disinformation.

 

[TexRex]

I really think people need to start getting their words right here. First of all the government needs to clarify what it's doing. Secondly, they need to be very particular with their words - misinformation and disinfortmation are two very different things. Misinformation is annoying. Disinformation is destructive. I don't care much about misinformation. I care a lot about disinformation.


For example, in my opinion this is irrelevant. I don't care what he has to say about misinformation because misinformation is not the core of the problem.

They're both false statements of fact. The only meaningful difference between the two is intent, and outside of defamation, false statements of fact are protected. That isn't to say that penalties cannot be imposed for false statements of fact, only that any such penalties cannot be imposed by government. Any efforts that run afoul of Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine are included, so a government actor can't come along and say "Hey, so you can keep doing what you're doing just as long as you agree to also do this," whether "this" is increasing pressure on those making false statements of fact (what government actors on the left want) or providing individuals or groups with a platform to publish seemingly unconditionally (what government actors on the right want).

The First Amendment protects social media platforms' right to both remove content and not remove content.

 

[Daz555]

However much I may disapprove of hate speech, I believe it should be the beneficiary of speech protections, which I have on good authority aren't actually a thing in the UK.

Of course the UK has protections on free speech. No country on Earth that I am aware of has 100% unrestrained free speech. Of course each nation has its own views and laws about where lines should be drawn in relation to free speech.

Around the issues of oppressive and hateful speech. It may seem obvious that hate speech should be protected by free speech laws - I do understand the logic here. However on the flip side, the victims of hate and oppression can be silenced - the victims of hatred and oppression are silenced through fear - so you ultimately have some citizens who lack free speech. Protections and limitations at the fringes are sometimes necessary.

 

[Keef]

Protections and limitations at the fringes are sometimes necessary.

The rights of one can never take precedent over those of another. The moment they do, a crime has been committed.

I used to thing the concept of hate speech was nonsense but although difficult to quantify the effects are very real. Our society doesn't give enough respect to the mental aspect of anything, really. A person's freedom to live can be ruined by "mere" harassment if done correctly.

 

[TexRex]

However on the flip side, the victims of hate and oppression can be silenced - the victims of hatred and oppression are silenced through fear - so you ultimately have some citizens who lack free speech.

There is only a lack of free speech when the consequences of speech are imposed by government actors.

The rights of one can never take precedent over those of another. The moment they do, a crime has been committed.

I used to thing the concept of hate speech was nonsense but although difficult to quantify the effects are very real. Our society doesn't give enough respect to the mental aspect of anything, really. A person's freedom to live can be ruined by "mere" harassment if done correctly.

See "fighting words." See "true threats." Short of fighting words, you don't have the right to not be offended. Short of true threats, you don't have the right to not feel harassed.

By the way, "fighting words" has been refined to mean speech that can reasonably expected to result in a breach of the piece. "Someone was offended" doesn't suffice.

 

[Keef]

offended

Trauma is not offense. Physical action isn't required to inflict PTSD and various other mental issues. "Peace" implies an absence of physical disruption and historically mental disruption has been almost completely ignored.

 

[TexRex]

Trauma is not offense. Physical action isn't required to inflict PTSD and various other mental issues. "Peace" implies an absence of physical disruption and historically mental disruption has been almost completely ignored.

Do you trust these chuckle****s to decide what speech is "traumatic" and to evenly impose penalty?

How about this unrepentant sack of ****?

If you do, what the **** is wrong with you? If you don't but you want to give them that power regardless...what the **** is wrong with you?

Those aren't rhetorical questions.

 

[Danoff]

Edit: This is relevant.

Yea this is why I cringed. The right to speak out against government positions (like that vaccination is worth the tiny risks) is critical. It's one thing to commit fraud, or to knowingly trick people into harm, but it's another thing to make a case against even really clear positions (like that vaccination is a good thing). I'm vaccinated, but I absolutely believe that people have a right to speak out against vaccination, and that the right is morally important and important for the function of society.

 

[TexRex]

That the vaccine discussion is political is phenomenally ****ed up, but political speech benefits from the strongest protection.

 

[Keef]

As far as I'm aware, the concept of hate speech is based on actual evidence of harm inflicted, of which those people you mentioned have none. That's why I'm not prepared to throw the concept away - it's real, but it doesn't apply to those folks, and thus far their interpretation hasn't made it through the courts either.

What's next, we legalize drunk driving because nothing bad has actually happened? Remember when I used to believe that @Danoff? I bet Matt Gaetz would love it if we legalized drunk driving, just as if he'd love it if we legalized hate speech.

 

[UKMikey]

What's next, we legalize drunk driving because nothing bad has actually happened? Remember when I used to believe that @Danoff? I bet Matt Gaetz would love it if we legalized drunk driving, just as if he'd love it if we legalized hate speech.

I'm afraid it's already legal, or rather legally protected from US government interference. Social media is free to restrict it though, so long as it's not politicians calling the shots.

 

[TexRex]

As far as I'm aware, the concept of hate speech is based on actual evidence of harm inflicted, of which those people you mentioned have none. That's why I'm not prepared to throw the concept away - it's real, but it doesn't apply to those folks, and thus far their interpretation hasn't made it through the courts either.

Was this directed at my remarks? If it was, would you be so kind as to flesh out your response more thoroughly? I gather you may have done so in your head but it doesn't come through in what you've written.

I bet Matt Gaetz would love it if we legalized drunk driving, just as if he'd love it if we legalized hate speech.

Crucially, "hate speech" has no legal definition in the United States, nor do "unpatriotic speech," profanity or any other speech someone may not like. Congress hasn't demonstrated itself to be a reliable defender of rights, and if you give the power to narrow permissible speech to firebrands full of partison vitriol, like Gaetz, Jordan and Greene, you give them the power to abuse it.

 

[Danoff]

As far as I'm aware, the concept of hate speech is based on actual evidence of harm inflicted, of which those people you mentioned have none. That's why I'm not prepared to throw the concept away - it's real, but it doesn't apply to those folks, and thus far their interpretation hasn't made it through the courts either.

What's next, we legalize drunk driving because nothing bad has actually happened? Remember when I used to believe that @Danoff? I bet Matt Gaetz would love it if we legalized drunk driving, just as if he'd love it if we legalized hate speech.

If you're going to include, among the ways you can be criminally harmed, the mental affects that other people's speech might have had on you, you're getting rid of freedom of speech altogether. There are a lot of people in different challenging situations in life that can be emotionally distraught over even the tiniest statement. Someone in a depressed state might commit suicide after a fairly innocuous statement, I'd hate for us to start prosecuting someone for murder for being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Aside from that though, a lot of statements can be considered offensive, and people can claim mental anguish (and maybe even prove it in court) for an absolutely massive variety of speech. Even movies, I would argue, would fall under these categories. Imagine someone claiming (and proving) mental anguish because someone was shot in a movie, or someone had sex in a movie... I'm sure someone would try.

We protect our citizens from force, but we do not protect our citizens from thoughts, which is what speech is.

Regarding legalization of drunk driving, I still think legalization of drunk driving makes sense. But it would basically turn out the same, because reckless driving absolutely still needs to be the an offense, and additional penalties for negligent reckless driving (like via being drunk) could end up working out identically to our current system. The charges would just look slightly different. The only difference being that catching a drunk person would always require seeing some poor driving.

Edit:

To make Imari happy below, I should add... "or motor skills" to the last line.

 

[Imari]

Regarding legalization of drunk driving, I still think legalization of drunk driving makes sense. But it would basically turn out the same, because reckless driving absolutely still needs to be the an offense, and additional penalties for negligent reckless driving (like via being drunk) could end up working out identically to our current system. The charges would just look slightly different. The only difference being that catching a drunk person would always require seeing some poor driving.

It makes absolute sense on paper, but I think in a real world sense there are limitations. I've seen elsewhere that the actual scale of the punishment for crimes like this doesn't really have a massive effect, people just think that they won't get caught. And that's people who aren't drunk - I don't think anyone is going to claim that decision making is improved after half a dozen beers.

So you get this situation where you would still apprehend people for drunk driving, but probably only after they've had some sort of incident. That may be them swerving all over the road, that may be them running themselves into a ditch, or it may be them crashing into someone else.

The actual crime of reckless driving has arguably already been committed by driving in a state where you're unfit to handle a dangerous machine, and so allowing random testing and and apprehension simply for driving drunk allows the potential to catch people before the accident happens. The downside is that innocent people are potentially inconvenienced by having to take a test, and maybe even some innocent people are accused of drunk driving if the roadside tests are poor.

Either seems potentially valid choice depending on the specifics of the area in which you live. If you're in the country with few other people around, the high likelihood is that a drunk driver is only going to hurt themselves. If you're in a crowded city, it's almost guaranteed that an accident is going to involve other people even if only in that they will have to take evasive action. Weighing those off against the potential inconvenience to random citizens is fair and reasonable.

That isn't to say that penalties cannot be imposed for false statements of fact, only that any such penalties cannot be imposed by government.

What, like perjury?

I know where you're coming from, but it should be recognised that the government absolutely will impose penalties for false statements in a number of different circumstances. Most of them are ignored because people can directly see the benefit to society from having the rules that way. Maybe some of the things I'm thinking of exist in Australia but not in the US, but in terms of absolute freedom of speech the government certainly has at least some controls in place and will impose penalties. You do not have total freedom to lie at all times about all topics.

 

[Danoff]

It makes absolute sense on paper, but I think in a real world sense there are limitations. I've seen elsewhere that the actual scale of the punishment for crimes like this doesn't really have a massive effect, people just think that they won't get caught. And that's people who aren't drunk - I don't think anyone is going to claim that decision making is improved after half a dozen beers.

So you get this situation where you would still apprehend people for drunk driving, but probably only after they've had some sort of incident. That may be them swerving all over the road, that may be them running themselves into a ditch, or it may be them crashing into someone else.

The actual crime of reckless driving has arguably already been committed by driving in a state where you're unfit to handle a dangerous machine, and so allowing random testing and and apprehension simply for driving drunk allows the potential to catch people before the accident happens. The downside is that innocent people are potentially inconvenienced by having to take a test, and maybe even some innocent people are accused of drunk driving if the roadside tests are poor.

Either seems potentially valid choice depending on the specifics of the area in which you live. If you're in the country with few other people around, the high likelihood is that a drunk driver is only going to hurt themselves. If you're in a crowded city, it's almost guaranteed that an accident is going to involve other people even if only in that they will have to take evasive action. Weighing those off against the potential inconvenience to random citizens is fair and reasonable.

What I described and what the US does now the vast majority of the time is virtually identical. The main difference being the technical application of law to be more consistent with principles. The way we find drunk drivers in the US is by observing them having trouble driving. Sobriety checkpoints would be a problem for me, but not impossible. It could still be implemented in a way that I would accept, but it would be more along the lines of a reflex test or a coordination test (which of course we do to test for sobriety, but not at a mass checkpoint). If you can't pass the reflex test or the coordination test, you're not capable of driving a car. It's pretty simple. But it's not so much a sobriety check as it is a coordination check. It could apply to any compromised state (alcohol level, alertness, drug use, or just overall physical health). We do the same for eyesight, we don't wait for you to crash into something, we know for certain that the particular eyesight level is below the point at which a car can be operated safely by anyone. This is not the same for blood alcohol level, or breath alcohol level.

I'm not a fan of having people blow into a machine to determine if they are fit to drive, but don't make it out like I'm advocating for lawlessness and crashes. What I'm talking about could look basically identical to what we have now, it just pays attention to details.

 

[TexRex]

What, like perjury?

I know where you're coming from, but it should be recognised that the government absolutely will impose penalties for false statements in a number of different circumstances. Most of them are ignored because people can directly see the benefit to society from having the rules that way. Maybe some of the things I'm thinking of exist in Australia but not in the US, but in terms of absolute freedom of speech the government certainly has at least some controls in place and will impose penalties. You do not have total freedom to lie at all times about all topics.

Like defamation, perjury (and similarly falsely reporting a crime) can reasonably be said to violate another's rights.

Misinformation/disinformation on social media is still dependant upon action or inaction by the individual to do tangible harm. It's also political speech, and the Framers recognized that because of its very nature, potentially limited through law by those at whom it's directed, it deserves the most robust of protections (without the implication that they are unconditional). The Court has mostly upheld those protections, though examples like Schenck stand out as particularly bad judgements in which they were not.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Danoff]

Agreed. The anti-free-speech backlash to the anit-free-speech movement is concerning.

 

[TexRex]

"BREAKING: Government Presently Commits to No-Brainer Policy Change"

Yay?

 

[TexRex]

The case referred to above was Cohen v. California, which addressed Paul Robert Cohen's being charged with disturbing the peace for simply wearing a jacket bearing the phrase "**** the Draft" (but uncensored). Not only did a majority hold that political speech containing profanity is likely to be protected (speech containing profanity is actually likely to be protected even if it's not political), but it also led to further refining of what constitutes "fighting words" to the extent that speech is no longer protected against prosecution.

Funny enough, I'd just quoted remarks of one of the Justices that came about because of Cohen v. California, over in the favorote quotes thread, a couple of days before that article was published:

"For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

-- Justice John Marshall Harlan II

 

[TexRex]

Good news regarding the active case referred to in the NYT article mentioned above. Per a post (language warning) from the ACLU's [presumably] official Twitter account:

BREAKING: A court vacated charges against our client who was cited for hanging signs that read "**** Biden" on her property.

This wasn't complicated — the First Amendment exists specifically to make sure people can express strong opinions without fear of government punishment.

 

[TexRex]

In the event that anyone forgot that Republicans hate free speech as well, however unlikely that may be, here's a reminder.



There's an obvious hat tip to partisan grievance that simply isn't there in the proposal from Democrats, to be sure, but what really concerns me is that there are points of commonality between the two proposals that may lead to compromise (I'm crossing my fingers for continued dysfunction, which feels weird) and a subsequent legislating away of speech protections.

Oh and platforms are no more hurting children than they are killing people by not limiting mis[/dis]information. This is aggressively stupid.

 

[TexRex]

This was an enjoyable and informative chat about the First Amendment, Section 230 (particularly the two attempts to break it mentioned above, but also background on why it was created) and the White House messaging on cooperation with social networks, among other things. It's not offered here in any kind of attempt to convince anyone of anything, rather as something entertaining for those who have an interest in these things. And hey, Ari manages to swear only once about three quarters into the hour-long interview, which is itself a feat.

#297: The Latest on Section 230 | Tech Policy Podcast

Section 230 is as important — and as widely misunderstood — as ever. TechFreedom’s Free Speech Counsel, Ari Cohn, joins the show to discuss the latest lawsuits, legal theories, and legislative bills swirling around the great charter of free speech on the Internet. Update: Ari and Corbin fret, on...

podcast.techfreedom.org

For something not unrelated, the very same Corbin Barthold of Tech Freedom, who speaks with Ari Cohn above, rips into a garbage "this is why Section 230 is bad" opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal in this fantastic thread:

 

[HenrySwanson]

This is sadly ironic: someone advised not to exercise her right to free speech at Speaker's Corner because of what could happen if she exercised said right.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not sure what that story has to do with the debate over free speech rights. The victim had every right to exercise her free speech and the man that stabbed her was undoubtedly a criminal.

If this is supposed to be some kind of gotcha towards those that disagree with people who want to outlaw Islam, I'm not getting it. You don't have to be an attempted murderer to disagree with her views.

 

[TexRex]

This is sadly ironic: someone advised not to exercise her right to free speech at Speaker's Corner because of what could happen if she exercised said right.

This isn't a free speech concern and there is no irony.

Someone expressed themselves in a manner that someone else didn't like and responded, not in kind, but with physical assault. Whether the expression was protected or not, nothing points to the response as being a protected right.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, and indeed those consequences may be neither appropriate nor legal.