On free speech, hate speech and threats

[NWRatCon]

Are you blind?
Trump has done nothing but attack the judge and people of the court.

His lawyer has also done the same right outside the courtroom.
At least try and accept reality.

I knew he wasn't being honest, even when he said "bye". It's not blindness, it is stubborn sycophancy.

 

[Grogu]

The First Amendment is getting a lot of press, of late - and threats. By my signature, one can see it is a civil right that means a lot to me. What this thread is about is where lines should be drawn.

In general, I am for as much free speech, press and freedom of religion as society can handle. These are fundamental civil rights. But, there are limits, and always have been. The key, I think, is civil, as in civilization, society.

I agree, the key is in civility. When people and our institutions become targets of those without civility, or those that believe the ends justify the means to get their desired outcomes, we get what we have today.

Where any right gets circumscribed is when it begins to encroach on others in society - in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" kinda way. In my view, we're losing sight of that fundamental balance. That is most pronounced in the courts, but it permeates society as well.

I don’t think that we’re losing sight of that fundamental balance, I actually think we’ve lost it. It’s not a society of building everybody up, but one where division, winning, putting down others, and “it’s only good if it’s good for me“ dominates our society. Rights of others be damned.

The Supreme Court's ideologues have a tendency to misapply basic tenets and ignore ones they don't like. This appears most starkly in their new "freedom of my religion" rulings. They are perfectly content to let religion encroach on government processes, but excessively overbroad in applying it to government action. It is being wielded as a sword, instead of precinct like a shield.

This is huge. The guidance set down by this Supreme Court has been absolutely abysmal, and they have been shortsighted when it comes to the long range ramifications of their rulings. I really don’t think they care about that. They’re too busy cloaking themselves in the here and now, except when it comes to opening doors to tearing down more precedents or rights.

They flat out screwed up Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, thanks to Gorsuch’s incompetence in recognizing the facts of the matter. 303 Creative v. Elenis was wrong, mainly due to it being a ruling in search of real defendant. Dobbs, Bruen, I could go on and on.

Speech is another area where the basic balance is being upset, largely as a result of aggressive efforts by some to confound it. Again, there is a concerted effort to force dangerous speech on a vulnerable public, and to excuse the aggression behind observing claims of protection. Normally, I'm not in favor of criminalizing hate speech, loathsome as I find it.

It becomes relevant, however, when it is coupled with action. That may be in the motivation behind a crime; that may be in inciting an insurrection; targeting witnesses (and others) by name; or otherwise encouraging violence. These are criminal actions with a long history in the law, our law. It's a fine line, but a discernable one.

Like some other things in our society, tragedy is going to have to happen before people wake up, I’m afraid. There also has to be a willingness to connect the dots of speech to the actions, which I’m not seeing. Just the opposite.

There are a number of cases percolating through the courts on the topic, and I wanted this thread to be a broader discussion of the general topic. Let's get to it.

I’ll try to keep up here. I’m not as patient or articulate as you, though.

 

[NatMorton]

I expected some degree of trolling, but I didn't anticipate it would be so aggressive.

I was genuinely interested in discussing some of the concepts, hence the thread title. As a civil libertarian I am disturbed by the level of rancor and downright dangerous rhetoric. There is a distinction between hateful speech, based upon various prejudices and such, and then there is volatile speech that encourages hateful actions.

For example, the speech around Nancy Pelosi went from disliking her policy choices to attacking her personally, which eventually left to the attack on her husband. This sequence of events is not only predictable, it is almost inevitable, and keeps happening.

Law enforcement refers to this as "stochastic" - randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

Who gets to decide which speech crossly the line between a personal attack (a tactic that is mostly harmless and says more about the speaker than the target) and “dangerous speech?” Will it be a Biden appointee? A Trump appointee? Who?

 

[ralfy]

Ideologue vs. ideologue.

 

[bomberfox]

We probably should extend the test to include incitement to genocide or something to include klukkers and nazis. Most other groups arent numerous enough to matter. I think the ACLU made a huge flaw in defending these guys.

 

[Juks]

If the court is going to limit what is said about the parties in a court case, their limits should apply to ALL...including the media. If they can't do that, then there should be no limits to what can be said about the parties in a court case.

The media shouldn't get special treatment.

But hey...you are free to disagree with me.

btw, this isn't about Trump, but since you brought him up, he hasn't only spoken about that court clerk. He has also spoken about the judge and the prosecutor. He is being prevented from exercising his 1st Amendment right to do so.

If Trump's statements leads to murder of a clerk or/and the clerks family? Would you change your mind?

Should certain jobs include risk of death for the family as well? How do you pay a salary that covers that kind of risk?

 

[DreamRyderX]

At the end of the day, "The Right of Free Speech doesn't end when others take offense".

 

[Grizzly Adams]

303 Creative v. Elenis was wrong, mainly due to it being a ruling in search of real defendant.

WTF are you talking about? Aubrey Elenis was the defendant. She's the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. You just said her name.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The press does in fact enjoy an enumerated right unto itself.

It does, but I don't think it's the same press you're thinking of, based on the context of your statement.

In short, journalists aren't special and have no constitutional rights others don't.

 

[Grogu]

WTF are you talking about? Aubrey Elenis was the defendant. She's the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. You just said her name.

What’s your problem? Are you bored? My post was before Thanksgiving. I see you still haven’t bothered correcting “judgement” in your sig to the U.S. English version “judgment” yet, either. You want to be such a stickler for accuracy here, yet you continue to parade that in every post. LOL. And instead of carving out one sentence to criticize, how about quoting the section for a little context?

This is huge. The guidance set down by this Supreme Court has been absolutely abysmal, and they have been shortsighted when it comes to the long range ramifications of their rulings. I really don’t think they care about that. They’re too busy cloaking themselves in the here and now, except when it comes to opening doors to tearing down more precedents or rights.

They flat out screwed up Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, thanks to Gorsuch’s incompetence in recognizing the facts of the matter. 303 Creative v. Elenis was wrong, mainly due to it being a ruling in search of real defendant. Dobbs, Bruen, I could go on and on.

Yeah, it could have been worded differently and defendant was the wrong term, but the gist of it was that there wasn’t a couple alleging discrimination. Lorie Smith sued because she wanted to advertise that she wouldn’t make wedding websites for same-sex couples. It was a hypothetical since no one was harmed, and no one had been turned away from her business. The courts didn’t do their proper diligence.

 

[OlNate]

The First Amendment is getting a lot of press, of late - and threats. By my signature, one can see it is a civil right that means a lot to me. What this thread is about is where lines should be drawn.

In general, I am for as much free speech, press and freedom of religion as society can handle. These are fundamental civil rights. But, there are limits, and always have been. The key, I think, is civil, as in civilization, society.

Where any right gets circumscribed is when it begins to encroach on others in society - in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" kinda way. In my view, we're losing sight of that fundamental balance. That is most pronounced in the courts, but it permeates society as well.

The Supreme Court's ideologues have a tendency to misapply basic tenets and ignore ones they don't like. This appears most starkly in their new "freedom of my religion" rulings. They are perfectly content to let religion encroach on government processes, but excessively overbroad in applying it to government action. It is being wielded as a sword, instead of precinct like a shield.

Speech is another area where the basic balance is being upset, largely as a result of aggressive efforts by some to confound it. Again, there is a concerted effort to force dangerous speech on a vulnerable public, and to excuse the aggression behind observing claims of protection. Normally, I'm not in favor of criminalizing hate speech, loathsome as I find it.

It becomes relevant, however, when it is coupled with action. That may be in the motivation behind a crime; that may be in inciting an insurrection; targeting witnesses (and others) by name; or otherwise encouraging violence. These are criminal actions with a long history in the law, our law. It's a fine line, but a discernable one.

There are a number of cases percolating through the courts on the topic, and I wanted this thread to be a broader discussion of the general topic. Let's get to it.

I find it interesting that free speech was established as a right at the same time duelling was legal. I think you'd iron out a lot of the wrinkles in free speech some of the progress made since was walked back, in terms of the limitations of consequences of being an asshole. Or, if dueling, and other means of responding to "free speech" aren't desirable in today's society, perhaps a revisiting of the idea of free speech should be as well, as most of the time I hear about free speech these days it's about somebody wanting to be an asshole to someone else. Seems like most people not being an asshole don't run into many problems.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

What’s your problem? Are you bored? My post was before Thanksgiving.

Blame the person that necro'd the thread, then.

I see you still haven’t bothered correcting “judgement” in your sig to the U.S. English version “judgment” yet, either. You want to be such a stickler for accuracy here, yet you continue to parade that in every post. LOL.

Honestly, I forgot it was even there. I have signatures turned off. Is this better?

Yeah, it could have been worded differently and defendant was the wrong term, but the gist of it was that there wasn’t a couple alleging discrimination.

There need not be. Just a credible threat of adverse action, which Colorado demonstrated with their continued actions against Masterpiece Cake Shop and refusal to declare Smith would not violate the law if she ran her business as she wished.

Lorie Smith sued because she wanted to advertise that she wouldn’t make wedding websites for same-sex couples. It was a hypothetical since no one was harmed, and no one had been turned away from her business. The courts didn’t do their proper diligence.

Of course they did. The Supreme Court didn't mention the allegedly false request at all in their opinion. It obviously didn't have much relevance to the ultimate outcome, if it had any at all.

 

[Grogu]

Blame the person that necro'd the thread, then.

No, I’m blaming you. Wake up.

Honestly, I forgot it was even there. I have signatures turned off. Is this better?

Proudly advertising blatant ignorance is entirely up to you. Doubling down on ignorance isn’t being clever, either. It’s acting like a clown. Newsflash- it’s not a helpful tip if the author can’t manage proper terminology and spelling. Attorneys would be laughing at you just like I am.

There need not be. Just a credible threat of adverse action, which Colorado demonstrated with their continued actions against Masterpiece Cake Shop and refusal to declare Smith would not violate the law if she ran her business as she wished.

Hypothetical situations don’t get litigated. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and you know it. The lower court screwed it up by not doing the diligence to research the facts, then the assumptions snowballed right to the Supreme Court.

Of course they did. The Supreme Court didn't mention the allegedly false request at all in their opinion. It obviously didn't have much relevance to the ultimate outcome, if it had any at all.

The Supreme Court didn’t mention the false request in their opinion because they didn’t know or do their own diligence. They just took whatever the lower courts were slinging. The facts didn’t come out until after the decision and opinion were rendered. They were duped and they’re too arrogant to admit it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No, I’m blaming you. Wake up.

I opened a thread that had new posts within the day. I didn't look at the dates of all the posts before replying. Blame me if you have to have someone to blame for (apparently) such a severe transgression against humanity. Then sit there and watch me not give any more ****s.

Proudly advertising blatant ignorance is entirely up to you. Doubling down on ignorance isn’t being clever, either. It’s acting like a clown.

I'll leave such judgments to the expert.

Newsflash- it’s not a helpful tip if the author can’t manage proper terminology and spelling. Attorneys would be laughing at you just like I am.

If you need to obsess over a simple typographical error, I can't stop you. But your obsession is not my problem, and I'm not going to engage it any longer.

Hypothetical situations don’t get litigated. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and you know it.

Pre-enforcement challenges, however, do. That's what this was and it was nothing out of the ordinary.

The lower court screwed it up by not doing the diligence to research the facts, then the assumptions snowballed right to the Supreme Court.

They also didn't research what Julius Caesar's favorite color was. But it doesn't matter because that wasn't relevant to the outcome of the case, either.

The Supreme Court didn’t mention the false request in their opinion because they didn’t know or do their own diligence. They just took whatever the lower courts were slinging. The facts didn’t come out until after the decision and opinion were rendered. They were duped and they’re too arrogant to admit it.

Do you think the Supreme Court is in the habit of publishing opinions that entirely omit the basis for bringing the underlying suit in the first place? The allegedly false request had no bearing on the outcome of the case and the case stood on its own with or without it. Like Caesar's favorite color, it was irrelevant. That's why it wasn't mentioned.