Free Speech at Risk

[moda0306]

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/29/tho ... than-isis/

A great article detailing why certain politicians and their threats to free speech are a greater threat to Western values than ISIS.

These are actual threats to free speech... Not annoying social norms that that conservatives (and liberals) pretend are violations of free speech.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah, not a big fan of most of this stuff. However, it is important to remember that any discussion of constitutional rights requires drawing a distinction between the parties who benefit from those rights and parties who do not. Generally, American constitutional rights apply to people residing in America. In no way does it infringe upon the free speech rights of Americans to disrupt the internet services in ISIS-controlled areas.

[moda0306]

Yeah, not a big fan of most of this stuff. However, it is important to remember that any discussion of constitutional rights requires drawing a distinction between the parties who benefit from those rights and parties who do not. Generally, American constitutional rights apply to people residing in America. In no way does it infringe upon the free speech rights of Americans to disrupt the internet services in ISIS-controlled areas.

While I'd be inclined to agree with you absent a sound counter-argument that I haven't heard yet, that is hardly all that is being discussed.  Shutting down websites and prosecuting inciteful speech and registering certain groups with the government is very different than disabling the internet in a "war zone."

In fact, it's not just being discussed, but as the article mentions, has actually started occurring, however on an ad hoc basis, not formal policy, it would seem.


And before someone else mentions it, the left is also a threat to free speech.  They're similarly all-to quick to label speech "hate speech" and/or overly prosecute speech on college campuses (we'll leave out high school censorship for now).  The reason I'm "easier" on them is that usually the natural legal result of hate speech in "Leftyville" doesn't leave you locked up without a public trial under war-powers.  So at least some sort of correction mechanism built into the system.  But as a matter of principle, this is a liberty vs police-statism issue, not a left/right issue, and it should be "advertised" as such to help redraw the tribal lines (or at least try to erase the old ones).

[Pointedstick]

I notice several of the examples are not from not the USA but from France, which criminalizes hurting protected people's feelings--that's never coming to the USA. The ones from the USA actually do not strike me as all that radical and new. The core question here is, "what is protected by the first amendment?" The answer never has been nor ever will be "everything." Threats, for example, have not been constitutionally protected for at least quite some time. I can think of quite a few examples of people who have been prosecuted for threatening others over social media or some other form of internet communication. To use this same power to prosecute threats that fall under the umbrella of terrorism-related stuff doesn't really seem to be all that odd to me. What about incitement to violence in a context that is unambiguously a serious one (e.g. a place where attacks are being planned, not just an circle-jerk of internet tough guys)? That might not pass the "imminent" test, but is "imminent" the only test that makes sense? Maybe "not imminent, but serious" could make sense too.

I generally agree with you here, and I think that the heavy hand of the state is generally not the correct redress for potentially dangerous or threatening speech, but it's not nearly as clear-cut an issue as Glenn Greenwald is trying to make it out to be.

[Reub]

Do I have a Constitutional right not to have my head blown off by a crazed Muslim?

[moda0306]

Do I have a Constitutional right not to have my head blown off by a crazed Muslim?

No.  The Constitution isn't a check on individual behavior. It's a check on government.  State laws against murder would enumerate your right to not be murdered by another individual.

unless you count the second amendment, it implies a right to defend yourself family and others against the crazed Muslim... but thats a personal right, the rules for defiance of our nation and people by government is laid out in (Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution) and possibly in (Article Two (making the prez commander and chief of the military))