Today's Mass Shooting

[Meadmaker]

You should listen to Ken White's Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast because there are a ton of times where the SCOTUS has decided what someone else gets to say. Speech limitations are plenty and backed up by years of case law.

Well, sure. Of course there are some limits on free speech. There always have been, and there ought to be. The question is what should those limits be? We can sit here and talk in the abstract all day long, and I've seen threads do this where people go on at length on opposite sides of the issue, and yet never actually state a concrete and meaningful position. I'm going to repost something I said earlier.

Not buying it.

Of course, if it actually rises to specific threats or specific incitements to violence, yes, but we already do that. If it's the general, "Immigrants are taking over our culture" kind of b.s., that rhetoric is dumb, but making it illegal starts us down a path that ends in a very bad place.


I suppose I would like to see examples of what sort of rhetoric people think ought to be made illegal in order to curb mass shootings. Or if there is some sort of lesser action short of making it criminal, what would you have in mind.

It's all well and good to say we have to do something about thus and such a thing, but the devil is in the details. What is it that people think really ought to be done? in concrete terms? If we give government broad powers to restrict free speech when they think it is necessary, I'll take bets that they will find it necessary to restrict an awful lot of things. That's what powerful people do when given the authority to do it. That way lies madness, or more accurately, an authoritarian government or a dictatorship.


ETA: And, if possible, I would like to discuss this only in the context of what might be done that could reduce mass shootings. If that can't be done, it really ought to go in a different thread.

So, I would like to see an actual example of legal speech that people think ought to be illegal, or an example of a youtube video that youtube finds acceptable but which someone thinks ought to be illegal. Let's get away from hypotheticals if we can. Is there a real example of expression that is not restricted using the current prevailing interpretations of our laws and constitution, but which people think ought to be restricted?

As you can guess from the quoted material above, I strongly lean toward not restricting speech, but I'm willing to examine that position if given an example that someone is willing to put forward as an example of speech that they think ought to be banned.

 

[plague311]

So, I would like to see an actual example of legal speech that people think ought to be illegal, or an example of a youtube video that youtube finds acceptable but which someone thinks ought to be illegal. Let's get away from hypotheticals if we can. Is there a real example of expression that is not restricted using the current prevailing interpretations of our laws and constitution, but which people think ought to be restricted?

As you can guess from the quoted material above, I strongly lean toward not restricting speech, but I'm willing to examine that position if given an example that someone is willing to put forward as an example of speech that they think ought to be banned.

Sure, I'll give you a specific court case actually. Look at the Sandy Hook parents going after Alex Jones. The things he accused those parents of, after losing their children, has no place in a civilized society. It should be outlawed. There were no benefits to anyone at all in society, and I see it as inciting threats against those people.

Now, of course you're not going to agree with me and I can see portions of your counter argument coming right now. "Well, if we ban that speech, then we have to ban all conspiracy theory speech." To which I'll say, if they're egregious, then yes. If they lead to violence, then there should be criminal charges that can apply to those that said it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure, I'll give you a specific court case actually. Look at the Sandy Hook parents going after Alex Jones. The things he accused those parents of, after losing their children, has no place in a civilized society. It should be outlawed. There were no benefits to anyone at all in society, and I see it as inciting threats against those people.

Now, of course you're not going to agree with me and I can see portions of your counter argument coming right now. "Well, if we ban that speech, then we have to ban all conspiracy theory speech." To which I'll say, if they're egregious, then yes. If they lead to violence, then there should be criminal charges that can apply to those that said it.

So many things that people "know", and "of course" I won't agree with you.


But, I do agree with you, except, it's already illegal. Jones lost at least one lawsuit over it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/18/7338...er-wins-defamation-suit-alex-jones-sanctioned

False and defamatory statements are, and ought to be, illegal.

I think narrowing "public figure" exemptions would not be a bad thing, either. Sometimes what happens is that someone creates a news story about someone, and then declares that they are exempt from libel considerations on the grounds that the person is a public figure.

 

[plague311]

So many things that people "know", and "of course" I won't agree with you.


But, I do agree with you, except, it's already illegal. Jones lost at least one lawsuit over it.

That doesn't make it criminal, I believe it should be criminal. I believe that type of speech does damage to society as a whole. I know that they're filing\winning civil lawsuits, but no one has been charged with a crime.

False and defamatory statements are, and ought to be, illegal.

I'm pretty sure that's not accurate:

Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort"

I think narrowing "public figure" exemptions would not be a bad thing, either. Sometimes what happens is that someone creates a news story about someone, and then declares that they are exempt from libel considerations on the grounds that the person is a public figure.

Sandy Hook parents aren't, and had no intentions on being, public figures. So I'm not sure, but this same thing can be said about the PizzaGate conspiracy as it resulted in people getting shot because someone blatantly made something up. That shouldn't just result in a lawsuit, it should result in a jail\prison sentence.

 

[Meadmaker]

That doesn't make it criminal, I believe it should be criminal. I believe that type of speech does damage to society as a whole. I know that they're filing\winning civil lawsuits, but no one has been charged with a crime.



I'm pretty sure that's not accurate:





Sandy Hook parents aren't, and had no intentions on being, public figures. So I'm not sure, but this same thing can be said about the PizzaGate conspiracy as it resulted in people getting shot because someone blatantly made something up. That shouldn't just result in a lawsuit, it should result in a jail\prison sentence.

Crimes and torts are both illegal.

As for criminal charges against Alex Jones or his ilk, you have to tread very, very, carefully, but I'm not 100% absolutely against it, no questions asked. I'll have to give it some thought.

I admit, though, that I would err on the side of avoiding criminal charges. In the case of torts, what you have is a specific aggrieved party saying that he was damaged by the speech in question. That makes a fairly reasonable thing to adjudicate. If you make it criminal, you have the government stepping in and throwing someone in jail for saying something the government doesn't like. That's very, very, dangerous. I think the "clear and present danger" test really is a good one to use in that case, and I think the danger associated with Alex Jones' Sandy Hook speech is neither clear nor present, both of which are perfectly good English language words, whose meaning doesn't apply even in either Sandy Hook or Pizzagate speech.

 

[plague311]

Crimes and torts are both illegal.

Kind of:

Torts are categorized under civil laws, rather than criminal laws. This means that some torts may involve conduct that is not necessary illegal, but causes harm to another person.

I admit, though, that I would err on the side of avoiding criminal charges. In the case of torts, what you have is a specific aggrieved party saying that he was damaged by the speech in question. That makes a fairly reasonable thing to adjudicate. If you make it criminal, you have the government stepping in and throwing someone in jail for saying something the government doesn't like.

Again, kind of. I don't care if the government likes it or not, but I do care when it starts infiltrating the rights of/or causing the bodily harm of others. Your rights should not, under any circumstances, trump my safety. Ever. That's my belief.

That's very, very, dangerous.

So are the statements that lead to the harm or injury of others while not carrying any truth.

I think the "clear and present danger" test really is a good one to use in that case, and I think the danger associated with Alex Jones' Sandy Hook speech is neither clear nor present, both of which are perfectly good English language words, whose meaning doesn't apply even in either Sandy Hook or Pizzagate speech.

I don't agree.

 

[arthwollipot]

So, I would like to see an actual example of legal speech that people think ought to be illegal, or an example of a youtube video that youtube finds acceptable but which someone thinks ought to be illegal.

How about every word that proceeds from the mouth of Alex Jones?

 

[angrysoba]

How about every word that proceeds from the mouth of Alex Jones?

Apparently You Tube don’t find his content acceptable.

Having said that, no, I don’t agree with prosecuting Alex Jones for what he says. For the most part it is just dumb conspiracy theorizing. Much of it is obnoxious. But simply being obnoxious should not be a crime.

 

[arthwollipot]

Apparently You Tube don’t find his content acceptable.

Having said that, no, I don’t agree with prosecuting Alex Jones for what he says. For the most part it is just dumb conspiracy theorizing. Much of it is obnoxious. But simply being obnoxious should not be a crime.

I'd like to see him permanently gagged from broadcasting for the good of society and sanity. Him and a couple of others too. Not very many.

 

[angrysoba]

I'd like to see him permanently gagged from broadcasting for the good of society and sanity. Him and a couple of others too. Not very many.

Yes, me too. We could have a new Speech Czar called The Permanent Gagger General, who writes up a very short list - not very many - who should be permanently gagged “for the good of society and sanity”. I like the last phrase. It can be the motto above the doorway of the building, no, let’s make it a tower! The motto could be written down the side of the Tower.

Now, once the position is set up, who would you like President Trump to appoint as the inaugural Permanent Gagger General?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, me too. We could have a new Speech Czar called The Permanent Gagger General, who writes up a very short list - not very many - who should be permanently gagged “for the good of society and sanity”. I like the last phrase. It can be the motto above the doorway of the building, no, let’s make it a tower! The motto could be written down the side of the Tower.

Now, once the position is set up, who would you like President Trump to appoint as the inaugural Permanent Gagger General?

Are you done? Can you come down from Hyperbole Tower now?

 

[angrysoba]

Are you done? Can you come down from Hyperbole Tower now?

When all the hyperbole is cleared out of the way, the problem still remains: who do you invest with the power to permanently gag citizens? How do you write the specific law? How do you enforce it? And how do you make sure that such laws are not open to abuse?

 

[Baylor]

Interesting editorial in The Lancet.

Every. Single. Time.

No matter how many times we go over this, it never gets through people's thick skulls.

Every time you hear some European ramble about "USA gun violence" and "second amendment" and "The NRA" it's means he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. None. It's complete and utter horse****. All of it.

In the words of Taio Cruz, it goes on and on and on, and it goes on and on and on.

 

[arthwollipot]

When all the hyperbole is cleared out of the way, the problem still remains: who do you invest with the power to permanently gag citizens? How do you write the specific law? How do you enforce it? And how do you make sure that such laws are not open to abuse?

Fortunately, I am neither empowered nor qualified to make such decisions. I leave those questions for people who are smarter than I am to answer. All I will say is that there is an agreed process to make such legislation. Let's follow it.

 

[angrysoba]

Fortunately, I am neither empowered nor qualified to make such decisions. I leave those questions for people who are smarter than I am to answer. All I will say is that there is an agreed process to make such legislation. Let's follow it.

Huh? That sidesteps all the important details about who gets censored and who gets to do it. Do you really trust those in power to follow your wishes as you intend rather than the obvious ways in which they can be abused?

 

[arthwollipot]

Huh? That sidesteps all the important details about who gets censored and who gets to do it. Do you really trust those in power to follow your wishes as you intend rather than the obvious ways in which they can be abused?

If they don't do what I want them to, I won't vote for them in the next election. That's how representative democracy works.

 

[angrysoba]

If they don't do what I want them to, I won't vote for them in the next election. That's how representative democracy works.

So who are you voting for that’s promising to censor the people on your list?

 

[arthwollipot]

So who are you voting for that’s promising to censor the people on your list?

No-one, at the moment. I'm voting for other platforms while I'm waiting for them to get their **** together.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, me too. We could have a new Speech Czar called The Permanent Gagger General, who writes up a very short list - not very many - who should be permanently gagged...

"I've got a little list."


And in the comedy, that song gets rewritten every time with a new list of victims. When I first saw it, Boy George was the first mentioned. So would it be in society, except for the comedy part.

 

[Baylor]

Today's mass shooting has at least 28 dead so far at a bar. I eagerly await Europeans' take on how "The second amendment" and "NRA" contributed to this mass shooting.