(Senator) Markey (D-MA) proposal may threaten free speech

[fuelair]

Do you happen to know what the case was when the "fire in a crowded theater" meme was coined? Look it up.

It's not to your credit to perpetuate it.

Yes, and also the one that overturned part of the ruling in the late 60s iirc.

However, though the ruling was overturned as (iirc) not equivalent to the act mentioned (as passing out handbills, making internet boards for unpopular political positions and stuff between), the concept that free speech does not include the right to incite a riot/frighten people into thinking there is a fire when there is not one so they rush to get out and many die, etc. does continue in law. Hopefully that clears things up.

 

[Beerina]

Stopping people from encouraging crime is against the first amendment?

Criminalizing speech that has "anecdotal" relationships to crimes would be.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What is the possible benefit of such a study?

The discussion. The different perspectives.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Criminalizing speech that has "anecdotal" relationships to crimes would be.

It sure would be. Where is that being called for in the bill?

 

[Brainster]

What is the possible benefit of such a study?

It updates the previous useless study.

Michael Lieberman of the Anti-Defamation League said he backs the bill, which is similar to a Markey-backed 1993 study that found hate crimes linked to media “scattered and largely anecdotal” and recommended no government bans.

“If we thought this legislation would result in censorship, we would not support it,” said Lieberman. “You could take the position that any legislation could lead to government censorship, but the way we’re looking at this is a net positive. This updates a study that is 20 years old.”

 

[Magyar]

just to play devil's advocate here.

First - there are already restrictions on free speech - ala I want to nix POTUS and the like. I don't really see anything wrong with adding limitations on the spreading of ideas that are obviously harmful to society and without merit. I would for example add anti-waxers to this list. where not only do the ideas have zero merit but can be proven to be directly harmful to society.

Second - the argument for "unlimited" free speech rings very much like the 2nd amendment nutters of unlimited access to guns without responsibility meme/

3rd, several other countries - like England and Germany have such laws on the books with regards to WWII revisionist for example. And I cant see any real and practical difference between the ability of folks over there being able to talk freely and without fear of govt. retaliation about any normal subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country
This argument seems very much like the imagined loss of freedoms the right pulls out when we discuss UHC but can never actually produce a real example.

 

[cwalner]

just to play devil's advocate here.

First - there are already restrictions on free speech - ala I want to nix POTUS and the like. I don't really see anything wrong with adding limitations on the spreading of ideas that are obviously harmful to society and without merit. I would for example add anti-waxers to this list. where not only do the ideas have zero merit but can be proven to be directly harmful to society..

So, you don't support Bush?

 

[tyr_13]

So, you don't support Bush?

*slow clap*


(I reserve the right to rephrase that later...)

 

[Travis]

We're not allowed to study hate speech now?

Isn't disallowing such studies a form of censorship as well?

 

[thaiboxerken]

We're not allowed to study hate speech now?

Isn't disallowing such studies a form of censorship as well?

Nah, as long as it's science that's being suppressed, it's all good.

 

[mgidm86]

We're not allowed to study hate speech now?

Isn't disallowing such studies a form of censorship as well?

No, it is called saving time and money.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No, it is called saving time and money.

Oh, that settles it, then! I didn't realize it was about saving the... what, 50,000 bucks?... on an egghead study. Yes, it's much more important to keep, say, franking privileges in Congress (cost... $35,000,000 p.a.) than to understand what motivates hate speech and bigotry and what, if anything, might be able to be done within the framework of our laws and the Constitution (hallowed be its name) to stem this sort of behavior.