[Noisebridge-discuss] Free Speech

[Eric W. Rasmussen]

Very Great. Thanks Johny


On 12.05.2013 20:10, Johny Radio wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130512/78afdd5e/attachment-0003.html>