The founders made a number of mistakes; obviously, one of them was allowing slavery. But they also violated their own constitution on a number of occasions. Citing such opportunism as justification for ignoring the constitution is quite sickening.
It's not political correctness; it's freedom of speech. Political correctness these days seems to be more about controlling speech itself so that no one gets offended and arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently racist or sexist regardless of the context in which they are used.
If you initiate force against him because he's saying things you/others don't like, then you are the aggressor, and you should be punished for doing so.
I'm sorry to quote hardcore authoritarians like Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at you.
You should be sorry. Throwing quotes (even ones in the right context) at me will change nothing, as I'm under no obligation to agree with everything historical figures have said. A constitution that can be ignored is meaningless, and by allowing it, you are part of the problem. The government simply has no legitimate authority to ignore it, as it draws all of its power from it. The end.
I could almost agree with what you were saying *if* you were talking about normal laws that violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties; ignoring them would increase our liberties, so that is good. That is civil disobedience. But not the government ignoring the constitution.
No. You should not force someone to ignore a threat that they cannot themselves prove is untrue.
Yes. They choose to mobilize, so it is on them.
In any event, it has already been pointed out that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The constitution ***is*** is a suicide pact. The ones who say otherwise are cheerleaders for tyranny. The government derives all of its power from the constitution, so it has absolutely zero legitimate authority to disobey it.
You don't have to paraphrase hardcore authoritarian quotes to disagree with my position on free speech.
There is a big difference between someone making an empty threat about killing you and someone making the same online threat and including your real life address, the school that your kids go to including their route and such.
A specific enough threat that seems credible may warrant an investigation. If they were planning to act, then charge them for that.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech.
It can be argued that the 14th amendment expands the first amendment to all forms of government but it is not clear
It's quite clear. I needn't say anything else.
Also, the federal government is only allowed to do what the constitution says it can. The president can't just do whatever he pleases, even as commander in chief. I know that the government doesn't follow the constitution much, but that doesn't make what they're doing constitutional.
But personally, I think the US constitution, even as written, gives the government far too much power.
All rights are limited
All laws are created by humans. Any law that can exist can also not exist.
That comment was about someone suggesting that it's okay to initiate force against someone else merely for saying things that they don't like (vigilante 'justice'). I do not think that sort of thing should be handled through violence.
If we let people who were "just joking" off, then we need to become a lot more thick skinned about when we dispatch those responders.
Yes. The great thing about my approach is that that would become a necessity. We need to take a more rational approach to this, rather than harassing everyone for any joke they might make.
And then when someone dies because there was a real issue and the sensitivity level had to be reduced because the rest of them were "just joking", the first responders end up looking incompetent even though they were forced to their wits end with this bullshit and stepped back their response.
That, too, is something we must get over. There is no such thing as perfect safety, and the public's obsession with perfection only leads to the erosion of our fundamental liberties.
I think it is reasonable to charge someone for being that kind of asshole which falsely mobilizes that sort of response.
Maybe you should blame the people who decide to do the mobilizing.
If we don't actually make that sort of speech illegal, I think we should also make it not illegal for the people affected by this "joker" to beat the ever-living shit out of that person for scaring them
Perhaps they should take that up with themselves.
After all, free speech should not make you immune from the consequences of that speech.
Making you immune from legal and physical repercussions is precisely the point of free speech. Otherwise, you simply don't have it.
In my opinion, the US courts are quite good at this.
We have free speech zones, severe obscenity laws (FCC censorship, laws against 'swearing' in public, etc.), and pretty much everything else already listed. Again, that might be better than some other countries, but it is not *good* until we fix every single one of these problems.
Nobody sane wants absolute freedom of expression.
Plenty of sane people want exactly that, realizing it is not the speech that is the problem, but people's actions. If people believe baseless rumors and act upon them, that is their fault, and they are the ones doing the damage (if they took actions which harmed others).
But really, libel laws aren't the main point of discussion.
And if I were a judge, in a case like that I might very well just let them walk, considering it legitimate self-defense.
That is *not* self-defense. You were not physically attacked. You just assaulted someone because you didn't like what they were saying, which makes you the aggressor.
I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.
Civil cases still involve the government enforcing the decision. They might not be as severe, but they're still an infringement upon free speech rights.
I'm not going to even bother than the rest, because you clearly missed the point. No right is absolute, but the US Supreme Court guards the freedom of expression in the US much more fiercely than European Courts do.
X being better than Y does not mean that X is good. Really, the US courts are quite terrible at this.
Even the courts don't seem to agree with it. They'd rather modify it with invisible ink than face reality and go through the proper process (constitutional amendments).
You know it only applies to specific types of comments right?. ie "I'm going to kill you" "I'm going to rape you" type comments.
What if it's a joke or something? I would think they would only act if there's evidence that the threat is likely going to be carried out, but this makes it sound like even a non-serious comment like that can get you in trouble.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks the US is some bastion of freedom is speech is making shit up or just ignorant. The reality is that the US needs to go through some drastic changes as well, as we can't claim to be a truly free country if we don't respect something as basic as the right to free speech (which we don't).
Threatening to hit someone when you're in person is assault.
That's nonsense, in my opinion. We should get rid of those laws.
Calling in a bomb threat isn't free speach, no matter if you were 'joking' or not.
Incorrect. Laws that take everything seriously are a huge problem, like with the guy who was harassed by government thugs for making a bomb joke on Twitter. We've become a society where even making jokes can get you into huge trouble, and that's not what any truly free country should strive to be.
Screwing with people's lives, even if it's only one person and not a 'terroristic threat' shouldn't be, either.
And the strange thing is... I'd normally agree with you about the freedom of speach and people need to grow a thicker skin... but once you get threats of violence, that's drawing the line.
I don't want people's subjective nonsense to forbid speech. Offense is taken, not given. What matters to me is whether someone takes action or tries to.
These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No one would permit such venom in person
Actually, I would hope people would. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. If you're offended by what someone says, get over it; government censorship is intolerable.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, only barbarians would resort to such a thing. Trolling is free speech, so toughen up.
Limits on freedom of expression are a balance between the liberties of one individual and the rights and liberties of another.
We're specifically talking about free speech here. There are no fists, I assure you. I also don't care what most people believe.
Is it my right to lie?
Is it my right to give false testimony in court or to a police officer?
I think it should be, yes. The courts and the government in general just ignore the constitution anyway.
No right is completely absolute.
But they could be.
Now, could you stop telling me what the status quo is? I'm aware, and that's exactly why I'm criticizing it.
The founders made a number of mistakes; obviously, one of them was allowing slavery. But they also violated their own constitution on a number of occasions. Citing such opportunism as justification for ignoring the constitution is quite sickening.
It's not political correctness; it's freedom of speech. Political correctness these days seems to be more about controlling speech itself so that no one gets offended and arbitrarily deciding that certain words are inherently racist or sexist regardless of the context in which they are used.
If you initiate force against him because he's saying things you/others don't like, then you are the aggressor, and you should be punished for doing so.
I'm sorry to quote hardcore authoritarians like Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at you.
You should be sorry. Throwing quotes (even ones in the right context) at me will change nothing, as I'm under no obligation to agree with everything historical figures have said. A constitution that can be ignored is meaningless, and by allowing it, you are part of the problem. The government simply has no legitimate authority to ignore it, as it draws all of its power from it. The end.
I could almost agree with what you were saying *if* you were talking about normal laws that violate the constitution and people's fundamental liberties; ignoring them would increase our liberties, so that is good. That is civil disobedience. But not the government ignoring the constitution.
No. You should not force someone to ignore a threat that they cannot themselves prove is untrue.
Yes. They choose to mobilize, so it is on them.
In any event, it has already been pointed out that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The constitution ***is*** is a suicide pact. The ones who say otherwise are cheerleaders for tyranny. The government derives all of its power from the constitution, so it has absolutely zero legitimate authority to disobey it.
You don't have to paraphrase hardcore authoritarian quotes to disagree with my position on free speech.
There is a big difference between someone making an empty threat about killing you and someone making the same online threat and including your real life address, the school that your kids go to including their route and such.
A specific enough threat that seems credible may warrant an investigation. If they were planning to act, then charge them for that.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech.
It can be argued that the 14th amendment expands the first amendment to all forms of government but it is not clear
It's quite clear. I needn't say anything else.
Also, the federal government is only allowed to do what the constitution says it can. The president can't just do whatever he pleases, even as commander in chief. I know that the government doesn't follow the constitution much, but that doesn't make what they're doing constitutional.
But personally, I think the US constitution, even as written, gives the government far too much power.
All rights are limited
All laws are created by humans. Any law that can exist can also not exist.
That comment was about someone suggesting that it's okay to initiate force against someone else merely for saying things that they don't like (vigilante 'justice'). I do not think that sort of thing should be handled through violence.
Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin?
That question is pointless. Whether it's harassment or not does not matter to me.
If we let people who were "just joking" off, then we need to become a lot more thick skinned about when we dispatch those responders.
Yes. The great thing about my approach is that that would become a necessity. We need to take a more rational approach to this, rather than harassing everyone for any joke they might make.
And then when someone dies because there was a real issue and the sensitivity level had to be reduced because the rest of them were "just joking", the first responders end up looking incompetent even though they were forced to their wits end with this bullshit and stepped back their response.
That, too, is something we must get over. There is no such thing as perfect safety, and the public's obsession with perfection only leads to the erosion of our fundamental liberties.
I think it is reasonable to charge someone for being that kind of asshole which falsely mobilizes that sort of response.
Maybe you should blame the people who decide to do the mobilizing.
If we don't actually make that sort of speech illegal, I think we should also make it not illegal for the people affected by this "joker" to beat the ever-living shit out of that person for scaring them
Perhaps they should take that up with themselves.
After all, free speech should not make you immune from the consequences of that speech.
Making you immune from legal and physical repercussions is precisely the point of free speech. Otherwise, you simply don't have it.
In my opinion, the US courts are quite good at this.
We have free speech zones, severe obscenity laws (FCC censorship, laws against 'swearing' in public, etc.), and pretty much everything else already listed. Again, that might be better than some other countries, but it is not *good* until we fix every single one of these problems.
Nobody sane wants absolute freedom of expression.
Plenty of sane people want exactly that, realizing it is not the speech that is the problem, but people's actions. If people believe baseless rumors and act upon them, that is their fault, and they are the ones doing the damage (if they took actions which harmed others).
But really, libel laws aren't the main point of discussion.
And if I were a judge, in a case like that I might very well just let them walk, considering it legitimate self-defense.
That is *not* self-defense. You were not physically attacked. You just assaulted someone because you didn't like what they were saying, which makes you the aggressor.
I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.
There is a point to which verbal abuse should be considered to evoke a primal defensive response.
Then you're not exactly a rational being; you're just a barbarian. Hopefully you get thrown in jail/fined, and hopefully you learn your lesson.
civil case
Civil cases still involve the government enforcing the decision. They might not be as severe, but they're still an infringement upon free speech rights.
I'm not going to even bother than the rest, because you clearly missed the point. No right is absolute, but the US Supreme Court guards the freedom of expression in the US much more fiercely than European Courts do.
X being better than Y does not mean that X is good. Really, the US courts are quite terrible at this.
As we all know, it's polite to punch people in the face who said something that you don't like. That's how rational people behave.
As far as I'm concerned, you have no business resorting to physical violence except if you're defending yourself or others from physical violence.
Which country does have free speech? Do tell, if you know of any.
Even the courts don't seem to agree with it. They'd rather modify it with invisible ink than face reality and go through the proper process (constitutional amendments).
You know it only applies to specific types of comments right?. ie "I'm going to kill you" "I'm going to rape you" type comments.
What if it's a joke or something? I would think they would only act if there's evidence that the threat is likely going to be carried out, but this makes it sound like even a non-serious comment like that can get you in trouble.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks the US is some bastion of freedom is speech is making shit up or just ignorant. The reality is that the US needs to go through some drastic changes as well, as we can't claim to be a truly free country if we don't respect something as basic as the right to free speech (which we don't).
Also, sometimes free speech zones are used.
This is about abusive, manipulative, disruptive and often threatening behavior that would not be tolerated off-line in the name of free speech
All of which is subjective. And not tolerated by who? Speak for yourself.
Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear.
Free speech cannot survive when speakers are shouted down, bullied and hounded off stage.
Free speech cannot survive the mob.
Unless it escalates to physical violence, your free speech rights haven't been infringed upon, unlike what the government is trying to do here.
Also, trolling online is fundamentally different from real-life stalking.
Screwing with people's lives, even if it's only one person and not a 'terroristic threat' shouldn't be, either.
That's completely subjective. Any such law needs to be destroyed immediately.
Threatening to hit someone when you're in person is assault.
That's nonsense, in my opinion. We should get rid of those laws.
Calling in a bomb threat isn't free speach, no matter if you were 'joking' or not.
Incorrect. Laws that take everything seriously are a huge problem, like with the guy who was harassed by government thugs for making a bomb joke on Twitter. We've become a society where even making jokes can get you into huge trouble, and that's not what any truly free country should strive to be.
Screwing with people's lives, even if it's only one person and not a 'terroristic threat' shouldn't be, either.
And the strange thing is ... I'd normally agree with you about the freedom of speach and people need to grow a thicker skin... but once you get threats of violence, that's drawing the line.
I don't want people's subjective nonsense to forbid speech. Offense is taken, not given. What matters to me is whether someone takes action or tries to.
These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No one would permit such venom in person
Actually, I would hope people would. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. If you're offended by what someone says, get over it; government censorship is intolerable.
Self taught programmers have huge holes in their knowledge that they don't even know they have.
A hasty generalization which could be applied to graduates as well.