Why Not Free Speech?

[Martin Hash]

I was listening to an interview of James Lindsay & Peter Boghossian on Triggernometry that explained why The Left is against Free Speech.

Social Justice as defined by John Rawls, CAN be rationally derived, meaning logical syllogisms work; it IS objective. But the new ideology, "Critical" Social Justice," rejects The Patriarchy (scientific) aspect of John Rawls, and CANNOT be rationally derived, meaning it is, by definition, SUBJECTIVE, and therefore illogical. Free Speech is actually an artsy word for debate, and debates are won with syllogisms and other logical truisms; so since SJWs cannot win in a debate, they must condemn and outlaw it. Religions fall into this same category of illogic, which is why they rely on faith, and given the chance, will burn Free Speechers at the stake. SJWs do that metaphorically.

[HarryK]

I was listening to an interview of James Lindsay & Peter Boghossian on Triggernometry that explained why The Left is against Free Speech.

Social Justice as defined by John Rawls, CAN be rationally derived, meaning logical syllogisms work; it IS objective. But the new ideology, "Critical" Social Justice," rejects The Patriarchy (scientific) aspect of John Rawls, and CANNOT be rationally derived, meaning it is, by definition, SUBJECTIVE, and therefore illogical. Free Speech is actually an artsy word for debate, and debates are won with syllogisms and other logical truisms; so since SJWs cannot win in a debate, they must condemn and outlaw it. Religions fall into this same category of illogic, which is why they rely on faith, and given the chance, will burn Free Speechers at the stake. SJWs do that metaphorically.

Because of the 1st amendment. So if I don’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, my free speech is just as valid as yours.

[Martin Hash]

You can certainly yell “fire” in a crowded theater, that’s just and old trope. There’s no law against it.

[The Conservative]

You can certainly yell “fire” in a crowded theater, that’s just and old trope. There’s no law against it.

Schenck v. United States in 1919

No law, but statute.

[Martin Hash]

You can certainly yell “fire” in a crowded theater, that’s just and old trope. There’s no law against it.

Schenck v. United States in 1919

No law, but statute.

Overturned: Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969

[The Conservative]

You can certainly yell “fire” in a crowded theater, that’s just and old trope. There’s no law against it.

Schenck v. United States in 1919

No law, but statute.

Overturned: Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969

Yes and no.

Federally, no...

State by state:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.84.040

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.11

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... awCode=PEN

We are both wrong and right at the same time I guess?

[Martin Hash]

In the 1st lecture of First Year Law, students are asked to raise their hand if they think Free Speech is limited by "yelling fire in a crowded theater." (As was on my 1st day.) Almost everybody raises their hand. (I didn't because I don't raise my hand.) The instructor then uses it as an example of common legal tropes that are untrue, and that law students need to clear out their pre-existing notions of what they think The Law is.

p.s. The Ohio statue you linked doesn't even mention "fire" in this context; the California law only means alarm, not speech; and the Washington statute is a misdemeanor that requires an adverse event to trigger. None of them constrain speech.

[The Conservative]

In the 1st lecture of First Year Law, students are asked to raise their hand if they think Free Speech is limited by "yelling fire in a crowded theater." (As was on my 1st day.) Almost everybody raises their hand. (I didn't because I don't raise my hand.) The instructor then uses it as an example of common legal tropes that are untrue, and that law students need to clear out their pre-existing notions of what they think The Law is.

p.s. The Ohio statue you linked doesn't even mention "fire" in this context; the California law only means alarm, not speech; and the Washington statue is a misdemeanor that requires an adverse event to trigger. None of them constrain speech.

That's the point though, it is dependent on the state and where their definition is. The alarm can be termed as someone yelling a warning.

But again, in this day and age of the triggered, do you really want to debate what you know vs what they think? You may be right, but you'd lose the argument vs the mob.

[Martin Hash]

The Mob vs. The Law (Constrained speech is free speech)
The Mob vs. Medicine (Gender is a social construct)
The Mob vs. Science (It's racist)
The Mob vs. Math (It's racist)
The Mob = The Left

[Martin Hash]

it is dependent on the state and where their definition is.

Federal preeminence (Brandenburg v. Ohio) supersedes State law.