Impact of Free Speech

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’m just curious what free speech is. If one type of speech can be outlawed then that opens the flood gates for all kinds of speech to be outlawed. Is freedom of speech a myth, an unrealistic principle, or something that actually exists?

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed because government alone has the power to use the authority of the state to take adverse action against citizens because of the content of their speech – such as fines, detention, and incarceration.

The doctrine of free speech doesn’t apply to private persons and private entities because they lack such authority.

Consequently, it’s both ignorant and wrong to claim that a private person or private entity has ‘violated’ one’s right to free speech because of opposition to the content of that speech.

Free speech is real subject to limits and restrictions as codified in law; it exists in private society with limits and restrictions as determined by private citizens.

 

[hjmick]

Does free speech actually improve society or does it just give us more opportunities to divide ourselves against each other?

Hurting feelings because you disagree with cancer research isn’t necessary speech.

Maybe you think public education is an item pulled straight from the Communist Manifesto. Is this important to say to a public school teacher?

I can think of lots of examples that when people talk others cry. Is the purpose of society to maximize crying and pain? If not, shouldn’t we put some limits on free speech or possibly abandon the concept altogether?

Don't care. Until there is a right to not be offended, fuck off with your suppression of speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If one type of speech can be outlawed then that opens the flood gates for all kinds of speech to be outlawed.

Slippery slope fallacy.

In American Constitutional law, there are types of speech not entitled to First Amendment protections – speech that can be regulated or preempted by government – where other types of speech remain protected, immune from attack by the state.

Examples of speech not entitled to First Amendment protections would include obscenity, defamation, and time, place, and manner restrictions; government may regulate speech absent the content of that speech.

Hate speech is entitled to First Amendment protections provided it doesn’t advocate for imminent lawlessness or violence; when hate speech advocates for imminent lawlessness or violence, it loses its First Amendment protections.

 

[sparky]

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities.

The doctrine of free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed because government alone has the power to use the authority of the state to take adverse action against citizens because of the content of their speech – such as fines, detention, and incarceration.

The doctrine of free speech doesn’t apply to private persons and private entities because they lack such authority.

Consequently, it’s both ignorant and wrong to claim that a private person or private entity has ‘violated’ one’s right to free speech because of opposition to the content of that speech.

Free speech is real subject to limits and restrictions as codified in law; it exists in private society with limits and restrictions as determined by private citizens.

the plot thickens when government utilizes private industry to do their bidding Clay

~S~

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have but I won’t get into it. I have been convicted of a Class 2 Misdemeanor in the State of North Carolina for something I said. I never threatened anybody. I never disturbed public safety. Free speech is not real. Beyond that I was also held in contempt of court for 2 days in jail for something I said on Facebook. So no, the freedom of speech does not exist. Low level courts do whatever the heck they want. To get justice you have to appeal. Freedom of speech does not exist. People that say otherwise have never pushed the envelope to see how strong the freedom of speech is.

As of this moment until April 8, 2022 there are certain things I could say that would get me thrown in jail. Yes. This is censorship. Freedom of speech does not exist.

Clearly you’re lying – otherwise this is ignorant nonsense.

You were held in contempt of court because you exhibited contempt for the court, not because of what you posed on FB.

And you obviously engaged in speech not within the scope of the First Amendment; that you might believe otherwise is the consequence of your ignorance, not a lack of free speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Twitter etc. relies on being in a public place to make money. If they were not 'public' you could not make a distinction between their site and one that has a door accessible by a password. They are in public they should respect the public!

Our only hope of enforcing this and protecting our free speech is the emergence of a new white queen, an unlikely outcome. Regardless we need to fight on, our duty as adult males even when fighting a war we cannot win. Disclaimers should not be used to violate our rights despite your defeatism.

Wrong – more ridiculous ignorance.

Again, private entities such as social media cannot ‘violate’ free speech; the doctrine of free speech applies solely to government.

Moreover, social media have the First Amendment right to freedom of association, to determine who will participate and who will not.

In addition, social media have the First Amendment right of freedom of the press, to edit content as they see fit, where how they edit content in no manner ‘violates’ the right to free speech.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Southern States never banned black people from voting.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong:

‘…some jurisdictions adopted a “reasonable interpretation” clause; these laws gave voting registrars discretion to evaluate applicants’ performance on literacy tests. The effect was predictable: most whites passed and most blacks did not. By the beginning of the twentieth century, almost every black had been disfranchised in the South.

Grandfather clauses, a peculiarly irksome impediment to achieving voting rights for African Americans, were enacted by seven Southern states between 1895 and 1910. These laws provided that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867 or their lineal descendants would be exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting. Because former slaves had not been granted the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, these clauses effectively excluded blacks from the vote. At the same time, grandfather clauses assured the right to vote to many impoverished, ignorant, and illiterate whites.’

Grandfather Clauses, Literacy Tests, and the White Primary – Civil Rights

civilrights.uslegal.com

Southern states in fact banned black people from voting.

 

[presonorek]

Clearly you’re lying – otherwise this is ignorant nonsense.

You were held in contempt of court because you exhibited contempt for the court, not because of what you posed on FB.

And you obviously engaged in speech not within the scope of the First Amendment; that you might believe otherwise is the consequence of your ignorance, not a lack of free speech.

This whole thread is about the bad parts of free speech. What types of speech should be outlawed in your opinion?

 

[presonorek]

Clearly you’re lying – otherwise this is ignorant nonsense.

You were held in contempt of court because you exhibited contempt for the court, not because of what you posed on FB.
And you obviously engaged in speech not within the scope of the First Amendment; that you might believe otherwise is the consequence of your ignorance, not a lack of free speech.

There are things you could say right now legally. I could say it and go to jail. That’s a fact. Do you really believe the first amendment and fourteenth amendment are applicable in real life? It’s a fantasy.

Trust me. A judges power exceeds his/her authority. Judges frequently restrict free speech and there isn’t a darn thing you can do about it.

I hope you remain blissful the way I was just 9 months ago. Reality hits you hard. Once the courts get involved they can shut your mouth if they want to. It’s called a gag order. Look it up. They are super common.

You are right though. I was ignorant. I thought the law applied to everybody. I didn’t know judges could make their own rules and disobey the ones we had.

 

[BackAgain]

Does free speech actually improve society or does it just give us more opportunities to divide ourselves against each other?

Hurting feelings because you disagree with cancer research isn’t necessary speech.

Maybe you think public education is an item pulled straight from the Communist Manifesto. Is this important to say to a public school teacher?

I can think of lots of examples that when people talk others cry. Is the purpose of society to maximize crying and pain? If not, shouldn’t we put some limits on free speech or possibly abandon the concept altogether?

shut up.