This can be said about any kind of speech and again, this is why we don't hold people legally accountable for their speech, but their actions.
Ohrly http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/us/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-sentencing/index.html
Again, there are exception to freedom of speech. Threats, inciting violence, child pornography, defamation etc etc. Point is we do in fact hold people legally accountable for their speech.
This can be said about any kind of speech and again, this is why we don't hold people legally accountable for their speech, but their actions.
Ohrly http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/us/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-sentencing/index.html
Again, there are exception to freedom of speech. Threats, inciting violence, child pornography, defamation etc etc. Point is we do in fact hold people legally accountable for their speech.
Defamation is civil, not criminal.
Child porn is not freedom of speech, as you can establish a victim before the porn is even produced. This is a very different scenario than we see with "hate speech". Which is reliant on subjectivity and individual actions after the fact. Porn itself has been defended as freedom of speech/expression because its two consenting adults, no crime is/has been committed.
Your example happened because action happened, had no action taken place, no crime had been committed.
And ive never ignored that our government has put these limitations on speech. My argument is that the reason why the first amendment itself did not propose these limitations is because the founding fathers realized the path we go down when we try to control someones speech, as have some of the greatest minds in history. Its not hard to see or find examples of, this idea of selective speech being used as oppression or for inequality reasons the second something goes off course. We even see this in America, and we've been seeing it over and over again. One could easily cite that this is happening because we dont have that firm answer of it being an absolute right. In America, what path do you think took us down this idea that its acceptable to remove speech rights from protesters? What reasoning did they use? The same reasoning we see with "hate speech"... the "potential" for violence. When we go down this path it will always hit a wall that you disagree with and for those of us progressives who suggest its okay to limit hate speech, that limiting is why our government is now limiting us.
This can be said about any kind of speech and again, this is why we don't hold people legally accountable for their speech, but their actions.
Ohrly http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/us/michelle-carter-texting-suicide-sentencing/index.html
Again, there are exception to freedom of speech. Threats, inciting violence, child pornography, defamation etc etc. Point is we do in fact hold people legally accountable for their speech.
Defamation is civil, not criminal.
Child porn is not freedom of speech, as you can establish a victim before the porn is even produced. This is a very different scenario than we see with "hate speech". Which is reliant on subjectivity and individual actions after the fact. Porn itself has been defended as freedom of speech/expression because its two consenting adults, no crime is/has been committed.
Your example happened because action happened, had no action taken place, no crime had been committed.
And ive never ignored that our government has put these limitations on speech. My argument is that the reason why the first amendment itself did not propose these limitations is because the founding fathers realized the path we go down when we try to control someones speech, as have some of the greatest minds in history. Its not hard to see or find examples of, this idea of selective speech being used as oppression or for inequality reasons the second something goes off course. We even see this in America, and we've been seeing it over and over again. One could easily cite that this is happening because we dont have that firm answer of it being an absolute right. In America, what path do you think took us down this idea that its acceptable to remove speech rights from protesters? What reasoning did they use? The same reasoning we see with "hate speech"... the "potential" for violence. When we go down this path it will always hit a wall that you disagree with and for those of us progressives who suggest its okay to limit hate speech, that limiting is why our government is now limiting us.
I see you're a proud graduate of Trump's school of "I'm not wrong, you just misunderstood what I said".
Whether it's a crime or civil wrong it's still a legal matter, i.e. holding one legally responsible.
View, possession, advertisement, solicitation and distribution of child porn are matters of speech as the case was presented in the SCOTUS. And no, unlike what you're suggesting establishing victims are not necessary for prosecution of child porn cases, e.g. advertising and soliciting are prior to the actual crimes. Also contradicting your legal logic is the legal status of snuff films.
Your original statement is "we don't hold people legally accountable for their speech, but their actions." The operative term is their speech and their action, not their speech and actions or consequences as result of their speech. Plus threats and inciting crimes are again not dependent on any actual resulting physical criminal acts to be prosecuted.
Actually first amendment does not protect speech that incite violence or as drunk pointed out, encourage others to threaten well beings of others. And freedom of speech somewhat subjective since it's something ultimately decided by SCOTUS in landmark cases.
The point i made to him was that you have to go outside of the first amendment for these rulings.
His point and his argument was not on speech to incite violence, it was on "hate speech" and he said it was not covered by the first amendment, and i said it absolutely was even after the legal rulings and precedents.
Historically speaking, hate speech has incited people to commit acts of violence and terror against individuals and groups of people. In addition, if speech cause people to take up dangerous activities (taking up an anti-vaccination position and not vaccinating their children), they're causing undue harm on their children, themselves and others.
Hate speech is still considered free speech in the US...kod is right. Only extorting violence or a lack of safety can get you in trouble.
I see you're a proud graduate of Trump's school of "I'm not wrong, you just misunderstood what I said".
No, im not a Trump supporter and im not sure where you would get that from or where you think i said this. I believe i only mentioned reading the whole argument once, and this was because you didn't seem to be touching on the meat of our conversation. Which is far less about "you misunderstood me" and more along the lines of "i dont think you read it to begin with".
However, If you want to accredit me for being a graduate of ideas that have helped shape my own, it would be James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens.... but i guess you wouldnt get to be as mentally lazy with that one, huh?
"Someone suggested i read the entirety of their position! TRUMP!"...... Can you be more lazy?
Whether it's a crime or civil wrong it's still a legal matter, i.e. holding one legally responsible.
Of course there is a massive difference between criminal and civil, especially when discussing and citing rights.
Rights are something you have that are safe from criminal prosecution.... that is kind of the entire point of a right. Civil is something entirely different.
View, possession, advertisement, solicitation and distribution of child porn are matters of speech as the case was presented in the SCOTUS. And no, unlike what you're suggesting establishing victims are not necessary for prosecution of child porn cases, e.g. advertising and soliciting are prior to the actual crimes.
Right.
And again this is because we've established that the act of making child porn is a crime itself. A crime, has been committed against a child.
Its called the protect act of 2003 and is what people generally go to. Of course, there is also an expansion on this because it needs to address a potential industry.
Also contradicting your legal logic is the legal status of snuff films.
Different court cases, different rulings, different precedents. That consideration is uhh.... kinda basic man.
But to keep it simple for you, it would be next to impossible for them to make the same ruling without it extending to documentaries, nightly news, public records, even security footage.
Your original statement is "we don't hold people legally accountable for their speech, but their actions." The operative term is their speech and their action, not their speech and actions or consequences as result of their speech. Plus threats and inciting crimes are again not dependent on any actual resulting physical criminal acts to be prosecuted.
Right, which was a statement being made to express the first amendment and how it was written and implemented. And again, as with the other person, youre adding on to what the first amendment says and its intent. While it may be accurate, that again is not the point i made............so hey.... maybe i should pull being a "trumpette" (according to you) and suggest that once again maybe you need to go back and understand the argument i made, what i have or have not already recognized (which if you did read what i said before, you would not have written this) and the issues taken.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment