Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Aug-2024 22:11:40 JST ?? Humpleupagus ?? SCOTUS actual requires that speech convey some message to be protected.
It's been a while, but I recall that there's a portion of the "bong hits for Jesus case" where the court discusses whether the phrase shouldn't be protected because the kids couldn't explain what message they were trying to convey.-
Embed this notice
EvilSandmich (evilsandmich@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Aug-2024 22:11:41 JST EvilSandmich @h4890 The two interesting free speech ideas I chew on are:
-It's less about someone being able to say anything that it is about my freedom to *hear* it. A lot of repressive governments don't care if someone speaks their mind when no one hears it.
-Free speech was always about conveying political/ideological/intellectual content. Naked ladies and such debauchery were tacked on by you-know-who -
Embed this notice
h4890 (h4890@liberdon.com)'s status on Wednesday, 28-Aug-2024 22:11:42 JST h4890 It's so strange. When I was young, beign in favour of free speech was completely non-controversial.
Today, when I say I am in favour of free speech, I'm thought to be an extremist and I get asked... what about terrorists, sex abuse, racism, crime.
Absolutely fascinating how something as obvious and good as free speech has become an extremist position in just a decade or so.
Some micronation should really pick up on this and launch themselves as an information haven, just like in the book
-
Embed this notice