[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