The problem with Holmes' contorted logic in Schenck v United States is that he never connected the accountability dots.
As a practical matter, we do not have a problem attaching accountability to what people say--that's the essence of the torts of slander and libel. Nor do we have much issue with holding people accountable when they deliberately attempt to start a riot or otherwise create a dangerous breach of the public peace--we should always remember that Holmes' logic revolved around FALSELY shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, a distinction that the modern speech police overlook far too often.
The key flaw in Schenck is that he never articulated how expressing opposition to the conscription enacted for WW1 created a public danger for which accountability was needed. While the practical logic of the example is on its face relatively non-controversial, lost in Holmes' legal pretentiousness is any relevance to the case at hand. As a consequence, that case has metastasized into a presumed rationale for a variety of speech restrictions which are quite at odds with both the letter and the intent of the First Amendment, when in actuality it should be correctly viewed as an example of SCOTUS getting things completely wrong.
Brandenburg v Ohio does a somewhat better job of connecting the accountability dots. The essence of that decision is that if you incite others to commit specific criminal acts you become complicit in those criminal acts.
Freedom of speech is never freedom from accountability--simple tort law establishes that. Where things have gone off the rails is that both people and government have moved from arguing accountability to arguing suppression--that people simply should not say certain things, period. Thus we get into such legal absurdities as "hate speech", "micro aggressions" (if it's "micro" it's no big deal, in my book), as well as the pretentious virtue signalling of "language justice", "language equity", and all sorts of other ponderous, pretentious, but ultimately silly bits of word salad. We have people seriously arguing that words which hurt someone's feelings are a greater crime of violence than physical assault or trespasses against private property.
It's one thing to say people must be accountable for what they say as well as what they do. If people speak falsely, it is not an injustice to demand they answer for their falsehood--the prohibition against bearing false witness is among the world's oldest ethical standards.
It is quite another to say people must not speak certain thoughts or defend certain ideas. Free Speech emanates from the need within a Free Society for everyone to have the freedom to speak their personal truth, however uncomfortable others may find that truth. The defense of Free Speech is ever and always the defense of truth itself.
Not exactly. More like the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 get in the way of the Democrats imposing even greater censorship regimes. You can't get to a China-style system of censorship and still give Big Tech Social Media blanket immunity. Step one towards that process is the removal of Section 230.
That step is one that the totalitarians and the libertarians likely would have in common. The difference is the libertarians would be more likely to stop there, while the totalitarians would replace Section 230 with something far worse.
My view...you'll notice these insufferable liberal politicians are saying more of "all of the right things" ahead of the mid-terms. The rest of the 2 previous years, it was all hard-left ideology. Then you have Graham bringing abortion to the forefront again, knowing full-well it was agreed to go to the states. Somehow, I think he knows it will hurt the GOP. I'm tired of these RINOs.
The scary part of Dementia Joe getting behind repeal of Section 230 is that he's not against censorship, he's ticked at Big Tech for not doing enough censorship and wants to punish them for it.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. forever clouded people's minds about the principle of free speech with his baloney about yelling "fire" in a theater.
Free speech is free speech, period. Simple. Simple. Simple. No exceptions.
Look at mandated labels on products. Government has no right to mandate what's on those labels.
The problem with Holmes' contorted logic in Schenck v United States is that he never connected the accountability dots.
As a practical matter, we do not have a problem attaching accountability to what people say--that's the essence of the torts of slander and libel. Nor do we have much issue with holding people accountable when they deliberately attempt to start a riot or otherwise create a dangerous breach of the public peace--we should always remember that Holmes' logic revolved around FALSELY shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, a distinction that the modern speech police overlook far too often.
The key flaw in Schenck is that he never articulated how expressing opposition to the conscription enacted for WW1 created a public danger for which accountability was needed. While the practical logic of the example is on its face relatively non-controversial, lost in Holmes' legal pretentiousness is any relevance to the case at hand. As a consequence, that case has metastasized into a presumed rationale for a variety of speech restrictions which are quite at odds with both the letter and the intent of the First Amendment, when in actuality it should be correctly viewed as an example of SCOTUS getting things completely wrong.
Brandenburg v Ohio does a somewhat better job of connecting the accountability dots. The essence of that decision is that if you incite others to commit specific criminal acts you become complicit in those criminal acts.
Freedom of speech is never freedom from accountability--simple tort law establishes that. Where things have gone off the rails is that both people and government have moved from arguing accountability to arguing suppression--that people simply should not say certain things, period. Thus we get into such legal absurdities as "hate speech", "micro aggressions" (if it's "micro" it's no big deal, in my book), as well as the pretentious virtue signalling of "language justice", "language equity", and all sorts of other ponderous, pretentious, but ultimately silly bits of word salad. We have people seriously arguing that words which hurt someone's feelings are a greater crime of violence than physical assault or trespasses against private property.
It's one thing to say people must be accountable for what they say as well as what they do. If people speak falsely, it is not an injustice to demand they answer for their falsehood--the prohibition against bearing false witness is among the world's oldest ethical standards.
It is quite another to say people must not speak certain thoughts or defend certain ideas. Free Speech emanates from the need within a Free Society for everyone to have the freedom to speak their personal truth, however uncomfortable others may find that truth. The defense of Free Speech is ever and always the defense of truth itself.
Likely a bait-and-switch.
Not exactly. More like the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 get in the way of the Democrats imposing even greater censorship regimes. You can't get to a China-style system of censorship and still give Big Tech Social Media blanket immunity. Step one towards that process is the removal of Section 230.
That step is one that the totalitarians and the libertarians likely would have in common. The difference is the libertarians would be more likely to stop there, while the totalitarians would replace Section 230 with something far worse.
And Dementia Joe has already hinted as such.
My view...you'll notice these insufferable liberal politicians are saying more of "all of the right things" ahead of the mid-terms. The rest of the 2 previous years, it was all hard-left ideology. Then you have Graham bringing abortion to the forefront again, knowing full-well it was agreed to go to the states. Somehow, I think he knows it will hurt the GOP. I'm tired of these RINOs.
The scary part of Dementia Joe getting behind repeal of Section 230 is that he's not against censorship, he's ticked at Big Tech for not doing enough censorship and wants to punish them for it.
Trudeau script, as well..... https://tnc.news/2022/09/10/executives-senate-c11/
https://reclaimthenet.org/canadian-government-funds-plan-to-combat-online-disinformation/
Trudeau could strike a major blow against online disinformation just by shutting his damn pie hole.
Right? 🤣
Absolutely!