Defining free speech

[Crimson1967]

I hope everyone celebrating their firings also support the firings of people who make tacky jokes when Joe Biden dies.

 

[Tidewater]

The report I heard indicated as much. If not, there is no issue.

Gotcha.
My point was the individuals in most cases will list on the same social media where they made the controversial speech.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

California wants to punish social platforms for aiding and abetting the First Amendment

Another entry into the "algorithms are magic" school of imposing liability on tech companies.

reason.com

There is currently no tech company exception to California civil rights laws, of course. Any social media company that directly engages in violations is as liable as any individual or any other sort of company would be.

But that's not what S.B. 771 is about. California lawmakers aren't merely seeking to close some weird loophole that lets social media platforms engage in threats and harassment.

No, they are trying to hold platforms responsible for the speech of their users—in direct contradiction of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) and of Supreme Court precedent when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Most Americans think free speech is on the decline, survey finds

"Drops in confidence across all political parties contributed to the record-levels of pessimism," writes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

reason.com

Reporting the results of the quarterly National Speech Index (NSI) survey, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) noted that "a staggering 74% of Americans in the October edition of the NSI responded that things are headed in the wrong direction for free speech, compared to only 26% who believe things are headed in the right direction. This represents a 10-point jump since the previous July survey."

I don't think any of us can be surprised by this, BUT..........

Unsurprisingly in these partisan times, Democrats and Republicans swapped roles as optimists and pessimists in January as the Trump administration took office. Democrats slid from 50 percent belief before the election that the country was on the right track when it came to people's ability to express their views to 17 percent saying so. Republicans went from 24 percent confidence that the country was on the right track to 66 percent confidence. Independents also became more optimistic, though by less than Republicans. The public's faith in the health of free expression, however, now appears to be on a universal decline.

Imagine that! A complete turnaround based on who is sitting in office. I sure didn't see that coming!

But seriously, this is why when the topic turns to free speech, I can usually tell within seconds if I'm talking to a serious person. The left needs to get it through their thick skulls that yes, even the so-called "hate speech" is still protected speech. And while we're at it, the people on the right need more than just a refresher course on the first amendment since as far as I can tell, most of them struggle to understand that the protections afforded them by 1A only applies to the government, not Facebook or your place of employment.

 

[Tidewater]

This is why I am not a fan of hate speech laws.
British woman, 34, is attacked by a young man, to the point that she needs to go to the hospital.
Texting a friend after the attack, she calls he attacked a [gay person using a word that begins with "f"] (he's not gay, but she was angry). The assault victim has a falling out with her female friend, so her female friend rats her out for "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages." The recipient of the message was the the person being referred to, but she was the victim, because she read the slur.
Elizabeth Kinney received sentence of "a 12 month community order with requirements that she undertakes 72 hours of unpaid work and 10 rehabilitation activity days. She was also made to pay £364 in costs."
I saw this and though to myself, "What? Can't be real."

Mum-of-four who branded man who ‘attacked’ her a ‘f****t’ in rant to friend is CONVICTED of hate crime

Assault victim is convicted of a hate crime after she branded 'attacker' a 'f****t' in text messages telling a friend how she'd been beaten up​

 

[Padreruf]

This is why I am not a fan of hate speech laws.
British woman, 34, is attacked by a young man, to the point that she needs to go to the hospital.
Texting a friend after the attack, she calls he attacked a [gay person using a word that begins with "f"] (he's not gay, but she was angry). The assault victim has a falling out with her female friend, so her female friend rats her out for using "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages." The recipient of the message was the the person being referred to, but she was the victim, because she read the slur.
Elizabeth Kinney received sentence of "a 12 month community order with requirements that she undertakes 72 hours of unpaid work and 10 rehabilitation activity days. She was also made to pay £364 in costs."
I saw this and though to myself, "What? Can't be real."

Mum-of-four who branded man who ‘attacked’ her a ‘f****t’ in rant to friend is CONVICTED of hate crime

Assault victim is convicted of a hate crime after she branded 'attacker' a 'f****t' in text messages telling a friend how she'd been beaten up​

Some actions are beyond comprehension. I understand the law's purpose, but this is incredible.

 

[Huckleberry]

This is why I am not a fan of hate speech laws.
British woman, 34, is attacked by a young man, to the point that she needs to go to the hospital.
Texting a friend after the attack, she calls he attacked a [gay person using a word that begins with "f"] (he's not gay, but she was angry). The assault victim has a falling out with her female friend, so her female friend rats her out for using "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages." The recipient of the message was the the person being referred to, but she was the victim, because she read the slur.
Elizabeth Kinney received sentence of "a 12 month community order with requirements that she undertakes 72 hours of unpaid work and 10 rehabilitation activity days. She was also made to pay £364 in costs."
I saw this and though to myself, "What? Can't be real."

Mum-of-four who branded man who ‘attacked’ her a ‘f****t’ in rant to friend is CONVICTED of hate crime

Assault victim is convicted of a hate crime after she branded 'attacker' a 'f****t' in text messages telling a friend how she'd been beaten up​

This is exactly exactly the kind of case that makes these laws impossible to defend. A woman gets beaten badly enough to end up in the hospital, vents to a friend, uses a slur in a private text, and somehow she ends up being punished. That isn’t protecting anyone. That’s the state deciding it can crawl inside private conversations and hand out punishments for words. There’s no universe where that’s healthy for a free society, and it’s a perfect example of how quickly these laws stop targeting real hate and start targeting ordinary people who say something stupid while they’re hurt and angry.

 

[Tidewater]

This is exactly exactly the kind of case that makes these laws impossible to defend. A woman gets beaten badly enough to end up in the hospital, vents to a friend, uses a slur in a private text, and somehow she ends up being punished. That isn’t protecting anyone. That’s the state deciding it can crawl inside private conversations and hand out punishments for words. There’s no universe where that’s healthy for a free society, and it’s a perfect example of how quickly these laws stop targeting real hate and start targeting ordinary people who say something stupid while they’re hurt and angry.

Agreed 100%. I keep hoping the Brits will wake up and apply rational thought.
People should not use a gay slur, but (a) the object isn't even gay and (b) she was angry about being assaulted.
Ayway, weird case.

 

[JDCrimson]

Agreed 100%. I keep hoping the Brits will wake up and apply rational thought.
People should not use a gay slur, but (a) the object isn't even gay and (b) she was angry about being assaulted.
Ayway, weird case.

Im not sure Europe or the UK will ever enjoy the free speech we have in the US simply because they know there is a long history of the region being a powder keg.

 

[Tidewater]

Some actions are beyond comprehension. I understand the law's purpose, but this is incredible.

Im not sure Europe or the UK will ever enjoy the free speech we have in the US simply because they know there is a long history of the region being a powder keg.

Maybe, but use some judgment. I cannot believe the officials in the system cannot picture how bad this makes them look. When officials apply poor judgment, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire system.

 

[Padreruf]

Maybe, but use some judgment. I cannot believe the officials in the system cannot picture how bad this makes them look. When officials apply poor judgment, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire system.

Well said...some judge had blinders on...

 

[4Q Basket Case]

This is why I am not a fan of hate speech laws.
British woman, 34, is attacked by a young man, to the point that she needs to go to the hospital.
Texting a friend after the attack, she calls he attacked a [gay person using a word that begins with "f"] (he's not gay, but she was angry). The assault victim has a falling out with her female friend, so her female friend rats her out for "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages." The recipient of the message was the the person being referred to, but she was the victim, because she read the slur.
Elizabeth Kinney received sentence of "a 12 month community order with requirements that she undertakes 72 hours of unpaid work and 10 rehabilitation activity days. She was also made to pay £364 in costs."
I saw this and though to myself, "What? Can't be real."

Mum-of-four who branded man who ‘attacked’ her a ‘f****t’ in rant to friend is CONVICTED of hate crime

Assault victim is convicted of a hate crime after she branded 'attacker' a 'f****t' in text messages telling a friend how she'd been beaten up​

This is exactly exactly the kind of case that makes these laws impossible to defend. A woman gets beaten badly enough to end up in the hospital, vents to a friend, uses a slur in a private text, and somehow she ends up being punished. That isn’t protecting anyone. That’s the state deciding it can crawl inside private conversations and hand out punishments for words. There’s no universe where that’s healthy for a free society, and it’s a perfect example of how quickly these laws stop targeting real hate and start targeting ordinary people who say something stupid while they’re hurt and angry.

This is what happens when you don't have a Constitution. Given the commonality between the US and the UK it's hard to imagine, but the UK has no Constitutional guarantees because it has no Constitution..

The UK relies on English Common Law -- IOW, judicial precedent and Parliament's legislation. Both of which have generally (not always) boiled down to the Judeo-Christian view of right vs. wrong.

The problem is that without Constitutional guardrails, it's also vulnerable to trendy zeitgeist. Which is what has happened here.

This is a really dangerous case in that it smacks of denouncement in the French Revolution, as well as internal spies in Nazi Germany and in Russia through several governments.

As in, you're punished because someone ratted out something you said in private -- even if you didn't threaten anyone with anything. You just called them a bad name. And as was the case here, it's because the rat had a personal axe to grind, arising from a totally unrelated incident.

IOW, settling a personal score by using thought police to bring governmental power down on the head of the other guy.

 

[92tide]

IOW, settling a personal score by using thought police to bring governmental power down on the head of the other guy.

there were more than a few folks fired after getting tattled on about saying the wrong thing after charlie kirk’s murder