US continues move to the right; Dems don't get it

[KrazyHorse]

I agree in general; I don't necessarily agree that SCOTUS was wrong wrt the law.

The "law" says simply that the government shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. Seems pretty clear to me.

[Kuciwalker]

And yet it's an extraordinarily complicated subject.

As soon as I can get you to accept any speech that's not covered, you have to start listening to a whole host of other arguments.

e.g. libel

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think libel should be outlawed.

[Kuciwalker]

I bet I can find some action that is entirely "speech" (as in communication of ideas) that you also believe should be illegal.

I'll start with death threats (at least in some form).

[SlowwHand]

Whose law?

[Kuciwalker]

Next move is soliciting a hitman, how about, in case the last one didn't work.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm on the fence about death threats.

You should have started with conspiracy.

EDIT: goddamn xposted me

[Kuciwalker]

Whose law?

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. You might have heard of it.

[KrazyHorse]

By the way, Kuci: I think that all of these examples are of unconstitutional laws, if you simply READ the Constitution.

That's why it's obvious to me that pretending you're following what the Constitution says, rather than what you wish it says is pretty silly.

Now, the latter might be a better way to actually run a legal system. But it really is hypocrisy.

[Kuciwalker]

Another point: even if the court does misinterpret the First Amendment, it's not a problem* as long as they don't cross a certain line**. I don't believe the court's rulings re: the FCC cross that line.

Free speech is an incredibly unpopular doctrine; it's more important for its advocates to keep us from crossing that line, than to extend free speech as far as possible beyond it.

* at least, not as much of a problem by far
** roughly where the slippery slope starts

[KrazyHorse]

I don't disagree with you. And I commend the US for holding a much better line on free speech than Canada has, in certain areas.

But I don't necessarily agree that it's more egregious to have fined a dozen or so people over 40 years for some fairly extreme political views than it is to regularly fine networks for showing people saying things I say every day.

We've chosen a slightly different region of space to allow than you have. Both are fairly permissive from a historical perspective. Despite all hysteria to the contrary, I haven't seen significant creep down the slippery slope in Canada (for example, all of the cases involving Muslim groups complaining about anti-Muslim opinion pieces have been dismissed).

I'd rather neither form of speech was restricted.

[Kuciwalker]

That's fair.

I just worry that Canada and Europe will get complacent about that border, because of the very observation you make.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm not complacent about it. I complain about it all the time. You may have noticed.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually I haven't. I avoid most of the Canadian free speech threads because they consist mostly of alternating "this poster is on your ignore list" and Asher.

[Asher]

Actually I haven't. I avoid most of the Canadian free speech threads because they consist mostly of alternating "this poster is on your ignore list" and Asher.

Irony