[Noisebridge-discuss] Free Speech

Johny Radio johnyradio at gmail.com
Mon May 13 03:10:18 UTC 2013


On 5/12/2013 12:41 PM, LinkReincarnate wrote:
> That is a straw man.  None of what he said was homophobic or racist.  
> Even if it was I would defend his right to say it. 
--It's not a straw man, it's a real scenario (i've heard racist and 
anti-semitic remarks at NB, and i spoke up).

--You might defend someone's right to post homophobic or racist speech, 
but i'm pretty sure such list-posts would get shut down and quick, by a 
broad and loud NB consensus. And the person likely booted from NB.

> In america the only limit we have on free speech is when you use it to 
> directly cause bodily harm to others (yelling fire in a crowded 
> theater)  Everything else must be protected (including speech you find 
> abhorrent like racism, homophobia, or sexism) 
--But Link, i'm just talking about noisebridge. You're discussing america.

--In any case, I believe there are a few types of illegal speech in the USA:

  * Defamation
  * "The lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting
    or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterances inflict
    injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
  * Seditious speech (if accompanied by imminent threat)
  * Shouting fire falsely in a crowded theater
  * Threatening terrorism against the United States
  * Threatening government officials of the United States. Threatening
    the President of the United States or other officials are Class D
    felonies. When national boundaries are transcended, it is considered
    a terrorist threat. When a threat is made against a judge, it can be
    considered obstruction of justice. Threatening federal officials'
    family members is a federal crime.
      o There are three elements that make a threat illegal: (i) there
        must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must
        be a communication containing the threat;(iii) the threat must
        be a threat to injure the person of another;(iv) and a
        reasonable recipient of the communication would consider it a
        threat.
  * "Utterances inimical to the public welfare, tending to incite crime,
    disturb the public peace, or endanger the foundations of organized
    government and threaten its overthrow."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Illegal_speech_in_the_United_States

> The proper response is not to try to censor people who don't agree 
> with you, it is to use your own free speech to counter theirs. 
--In general, Link, I agree with you, in and out of Noisebridge. But I 
also believe in Community Standards (made by the Community). At NB, 
community standards are not necessarily written; they are generally 
determined and enforced by individuals, on-the-fly, without any 
consistent, defined framework. That's by design.

> Free speech is it's own check and balance. 
--I'm not sure if history agrees with you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130512/2ffcb0a0/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list