Serious First Amendment law: addressing incelophobic Redditors' ten most common free speech clichés

[AbsolutelyBrutal]

By IQ increased by 1 point after reading this post.

 

[The_Scapegoat]

Based and high IQ. Mods need to pin this.

Yes, this.

1) The First Amendment, by and large, applies to state actors, those acting on behalf of state actors, and actors who exercise powers traditionally exclusive to the state. Remember, mudslinging is free speech as well.

2) No. Reddit and Google are not violating the First Amendment. Also, "prosecution" implies a criminal proceeding, but the legal remedy for a First Amendment is typically a civil proceeding.

Question, though: what if a private company or a group of companies who have a monopoly on a segment of the economy, such as the internet (ex: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple), banking, commerce, etc, decide to ban someone from using their services at the encouragement, behest, implied will, explicit request of an official or agency of the federal government for non-criminal behavior, such as expressing political beliefs they don't agree with?

I cannot help but notice that almost everyone who runs a company in Big Tech, banking, etc, are connected by blood, marriage, interests, and beliefs with certain government officials of a fascistic bent in the suppression of dissent and contrary views, silencing critics, inhibiting alternatives to their platforms from gaining traction (Parler, for example), or even using rogue actors (activists, hackers) to go after people, groups, and businesses they don't like politically (Incels.is). It is almost as if it were a real-world "conspiracy to deny rights" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241).

 

[FukFeminism]

Based and high IQ. Mods need to pin this.

 

[PPEcel]

Question, though: what if a private company or a group of companies who have a monopoly on a segment of the economy, such as the internet (ex: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple), banking, commerce, etc, decide to ban someone from using their services at the encouragement, behest, implied will, explicit request of an official or agency of the federal government for non-criminal behavior, such as expressing political beliefs they don't agree with?

First Amendment would only apply if they were state actors, acting on behalf of a state actor, or exercising powers traditionally granted to state actors. That they acted on the "encouragement" or "implied will" of a state actor would not cut it.

Private companies can indeed ban people for expressing political beliefs they don't agree with.

I cannot help but notice that almost everyone who runs a company in Big Tech, banking, etc, are connected by blood, marriage, interests, and beliefs with certain government officials of a fascistic bent in the suppression of dissent and contrary views, silencing critics, inhibiting alternatives to their platforms from gaining traction (Parler, for example), or even using rogue actors (activists, hackers) to go after people, groups, and businesses they don't like politically (Incels.is). It is almost as if it were a real-world "conspiracy to deny rights" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241).

Conspiracy against rights wouldn't apply.

Highest IQ thing I read, better knowledge of the US Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge.

no, SCOTUS justices mog

 

[NEETarded]

Leftists are always about moving goal posts to what should be the law to them. At one time George Washington talked about any form of gun control is grounds for civil war, but people gave in by slippery slope by slippery slope

 

[Julaybib]

idc about free speech

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

It means the law proscribes state actors from imposing certain restrictions on speech; not private citizens on private property.


"Fairness" doesn't and shouldn't factor into whether speech is protected.


It shouldn't. "Damage" implies that it would be the role of the state to impose vague subjective value judgments of the social costs of speech. Such a heavily restrictive free speech regime would create a chilling effect and eventually be weaponized against ideological minorities, such as incels.


Yes, for now. However, the First Amendment m

is this different from U.K. law as corporations in uk law have the same rights as humans in some instances

see

One little known fact is that, in addition to all their other privileges, corporations actually enjoy human rights, even though they clearly are not human beings. The article looks briefly at how this came about and proposes one way to tackle corporate human rights. On December 10 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It emerged as a direct result of the experience of the Second World War. Since then it has influenced most national constitutions and has served as the foundation for a growing number of national and international laws, and treaties, as well as regional, national, and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights. It may therefore come as a shock to realise that the word “everyone” throughout the whole of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and related instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights includes more than just human beings, who are legally defined as “natural persons”. It may also include companies and corporations, because they too are defined as persons under the law once they have been “incorporated”.

if so why couldnt they be held accountable to the same laws a human is under law

Also could this be applicable to the above about corporations being fined regarding abuses of free speech, if so why not, the corporations get the benefits of having humans rights as protection under the law, but no responsibility for their actions under the same definition as being under the human rights umbrella.

 

[Deleted member 36698]

For Americans, who account for almost half of all incels.is members, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is virtually unmatched by any other liberal democracy in a time where rabid online mobs seek to censor or even physically harm incels.

Non-burgercels have a stake as well: while the First Amendment doesn't protect speech in their home countries, the United States' vast influence over the internet still significantly impacts the quality of the content they view online. Indeed, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, noted in his most recent report that powerful free speech protections in the United States are difficult for authorities who seek to disrupt "extremist" content (see Conway, 2020).

After three years in the incel community, it's apparent that many of our most vituperative critics are clueless as to what does, and doesn't, constitute protected speech.

Let's get started.

1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
View attachment 482287

This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.

2. "The First Amendment doesn't protect ISIS, so it shouldn't protect Neo-Nazis or incels either."
View attachment 482288

Whilst an ISIS member who knowingly provided material support or resources (personnel including oneself) to a designated foreign terrorist organization would likely be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the operative words are designated foreign terrorist organization. Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is one of few laws which have survived a First Amendment challenge on the basis of strict scrutiny, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010).

Notwithstanding, the federal judiciary would almost immediately strike down any law to create a register of domestic terrorist organizations akin to that the current list of foreign terrorist organizations, on the basis of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It wouldn't even be close...not that incels are a legal entity.

3. "Fighting words aren't free speech."
View attachment 482290

Nothing that an incel could say online could possibly constitute fighting words under the First Amendment.

The fighting words doctrine was established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) to address face-to-face insults that were likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Even so, over the past 79 years, the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts have narrowed Chaplinsky to such an extent some legal scholars question whether such an exception to the First Amendment still exists. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court noted that laws proscribing fighting words do not pass constitutional muster if said laws engage in viewpoint discrimination.

4. "Advocating or inciting violence and threats aren't free speech."
View attachment 482324

Before we proceed, it is important to distinguish between the colloquial understanding of the term incitement and the constitutionally proscribable incitement to imminent lawless action, as is understood by the legal community. The mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. Saying "Every Stacy deserves to be raped and decapitated," is distasteful, but protected. Incitement is only proscribable if it is likely to culminate in illegal action imminently, not at some indefinite future time.

I have previously written in far greater detail regarding the legal history of the advocacy of violence as well as the "true threats" exception to the First Amendment. The vast majority of incel speech simply does not fall under either of these narrowly defined exceptions.

5. "The clear and present danger test allows the government to censor incel speech, by balancing free speech and X."
View attachment 482308

The Clear and Present Danger test, first articulated in Schenck v. United States (1919), has been overturned for over well over half a century by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Schenck was a case in which the U.S. government sought to charge with sedition a man who distributed anti-war leaflets and is now widely regarded as a bad decision. Yet normies continue to misquote Oliver Wendell Holmes; something about "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre..."

A similar line of thought popular among Redditors suggests that free speech is a balancing act and can be proscribed for the purposes of other governmental interests, such as social justice.

Here, the Courts strongly disagree: First Amendment jurisprudence holds that speech is unprotected only if it falls into one of narrow, predefined exceptions; it is not the domain of the judiciary to "balance" freedom of speech with X, Y, or Z. In an 8-1 ruling holding that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in United States v. Stevens (2010):


6. "Hate speech is not free speech."
View attachment 482304

Hate speech is free speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Period. Viewpoint discrimination, as opposed to content-neutral regulation, is presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court most recently considered this question in its unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam (2017):


7. "Free speech doesn't protect the glorification of rape or pedophilia."
View attachment 482292

The mere expression of sexual interest in children and young teenagers in general, while extremely distasteful, is not criminal.

On an indirectly related note, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that simulated child pornography was not necessarily unprotected by the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for a 6-3 majority:


In addition, multiple federal appeals courts have ruled that paedophilia by itself does not constitute probable cause to search for child pornography (though I digress from the topic because this is a Fourth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment one). In United States v. Falso (2008), the Second Circuit noted that:


8. "Muh stochastic terrorists!"
View attachment 482310

"Stochastic terrorism" is a pretty trendy term lately amongst pundits. In essence, "stochastic terrorism" describes speech that invites hatred against certain individuals or groups, causing listeners to engage in violence, even though said speech does not explicitly incite terrorism. "Stochastic" refers to the element of randomness in the indirectly causal relationship between the speaker and a violent listener.

The concept of "stochastic terrorism" has no legal construction, not in the United States, in fact not anywhere.

Like hate speech, what Redditors describe as "stochastic terrorism" is free speech.

9. "Free speech was intended to only allow speech criticizing the government."
View attachment 482305

Ah, right. Well, now that we're adopting some bastardized version of originalism that would make even Scalia look like a liberal by comparison, the right to vote was meant only for white, land-owning men, it was never meant for femoids.

10. "Speech can be intolerant. Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance permits us to deny free speech to the intolerant."
View attachment 482311

Whilst not specific to the First Amendment, it is not uncommon to notice left-wing authoritarians justify violence under the guise of Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. The following is oft taken out of context from his book, the Open Society and its Enemies:


Less quoted is Karl Popper's next sentence, which does not give the warrant to suppress "intolerance" as the SJWs think it does:


John Rawls questions in his 1971 magnum opus, A Theory of Justice, whether intolerating intolerance would make society itself intolerant, and therefore unjust. My question is more straightforward: who gets to decide what constitutes intolerance?

agreed

 

[Michinomiya Hirohit]

Imagine going to IT and then making a rebuttal post to seek their validation. Cringe.

 

[WhoreCel95]

For Americans, who account for almost half of all incels.is members, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is virtually unmatched by any other liberal democracy in a time where rabid online mobs seek to censor or even physically harm incels.

Non-burgercels have a stake as well: while the First Amendment doesn't protect speech in their home countries, the United States' vast influence over the internet still significantly impacts the quality of the content they view online. Indeed, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, noted in his most recent report that powerful free speech protections in the United States are difficult for authorities who seek to disrupt "extremist" content (see Conway, 2020).

After three years in the incel community, it's apparent that many of our most vituperative critics are clueless as to what does, and doesn't, constitute protected speech.

Let's get started.

1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
View attachment 482287

This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.

2. "The First Amendment doesn't protect ISIS, so it shouldn't protect Neo-Nazis or incels either."
View attachment 482288

Whilst an ISIS member who knowingly provided material support or resources (personnel including oneself) to a designated foreign terrorist organization would likely be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the operative words are designated foreign terrorist organization. Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is one of few laws which have survived a First Amendment challenge on the basis of strict scrutiny, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010).

Notwithstanding, the federal judiciary would almost immediately strike down any law to create a register of domestic terrorist organizations akin to that the current list of foreign terrorist organizations, on the basis of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It wouldn't even be close...not that incels are a legal entity.

3. "Fighting words aren't free speech."
View attachment 482290

Nothing that an incel could say online could possibly constitute fighting words under the First Amendment.

The fighting words doctrine was established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) to address face-to-face insults that were likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Even so, over the past 79 years, the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts have narrowed Chaplinsky to such an extent some legal scholars question whether such an exception to the First Amendment still exists. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court noted that laws proscribing fighting words do not pass constitutional muster if said laws engage in viewpoint discrimination.

4. "Advocating or inciting violence and threats aren't free speech."
View attachment 482324

Before we proceed, it is important to distinguish between the colloquial understanding of the term incitement and the constitutionally proscribable incitement to imminent lawless action, as is understood by the legal community. The mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. Saying "Every Stacy deserves to be raped and decapitated," is distasteful, but protected. Incitement is only proscribable if it is likely to culminate in illegal action imminently, not at some indefinite future time.

I have previously written in far greater detail regarding the legal history of the advocacy of violence as well as the "true threats" exception to the First Amendment. The vast majority of incel speech simply does not fall under either of these narrowly defined exceptions.

5. "The clear and present danger test allows the government to censor incel speech, by balancing free speech and X."
View attachment 482308

The Clear and Present Danger test, first articulated in Schenck v. United States (1919), has been overturned for over well over half a century by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Schenck was a case in which the U.S. government sought to charge with sedition a man who distributed anti-war leaflets and is now widely regarded as a bad decision. Yet normies continue to misquote Oliver Wendell Holmes; something about "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre..."

A similar line of thought popular among Redditors suggests that free speech is a balancing act and can be proscribed for the purposes of other governmental interests, such as social justice.

Here, the Courts strongly disagree: First Amendment jurisprudence holds that speech is unprotected only if it falls into one of narrow, predefined exceptions; it is not the domain of the judiciary to "balance" freedom of speech with X, Y, or Z. In an 8-1 ruling holding that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in United States v. Stevens (2010):


6. "Hate speech is not free speech."
View attachment 482304

Hate speech is free speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Period. Viewpoint discrimination, as opposed to content-neutral regulation, is presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court most recently considered this question in its unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam (2017):


7. "Free speech doesn't protect the glorification of rape or pedophilia."
View attachment 482292

The mere expression of sexual interest in children and young teenagers in general, while extremely distasteful, is not criminal.

On an indirectly related note, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that simulated child pornography was not necessarily unprotected by the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for a 6-3 majority:


In addition, multiple federal appeals courts have ruled that paedophilia by itself does not constitute probable cause to search for child pornography (though I digress from the topic because this is a Fourth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment one). In United States v. Falso (2008), the Second Circuit noted that:


8. "Muh stochastic terrorists!"
View attachment 482310

"Stochastic terrorism" is a pretty trendy term lately amongst pundits. In essence, "stochastic terrorism" describes speech that invites hatred against certain individuals or groups, causing listeners to engage in violence, even though said speech does not explicitly incite terrorism. "Stochastic" refers to the element of randomness in the indirectly causal relationship between the speaker and a violent listener.

The concept of "stochastic terrorism" has no legal construction, not in the United States, in fact not anywhere.

Like hate speech, what Redditors describe as "stochastic terrorism" is free speech.

9. "Free speech was intended to only allow speech criticizing the government."
View attachment 482305

Ah, right. Well, now that we're adopting some bastardized version of originalism that would make even Scalia look like a liberal by comparison, the right to vote was meant only for white, land-owning men, it was never meant for femoids.

10. "Speech can be intolerant. Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance permits us to deny free speech to the intolerant."
View attachment 482311

Whilst not specific to the First Amendment, it is not uncommon to notice left-wing authoritarians justify violence under the guise of Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. The following is oft taken out of context from his book, the Open Society and its Enemies:


Less quoted is Karl Popper's next sentence, which does not give the warrant to suppress "intolerance" as the SJWs think it does:


John Rawls questions in his 1971 magnum opus, A Theory of Justice, whether intolerating intolerance would make society itself intolerant, and therefore unjust. My question is more straightforward: who gets to decide what constitutes intolerance?

Lots of good points, but saying USA has the best free speech is a joke.

>"M..m..muh free speech." Nope. Speech can be restricted based on: intellectual property rights (Harper and Row vs Nation Enterprises, 1985), "fighting words"/threatening speech (Chaplinsky Vs New Hampshire, 1942), commercial speech (e.g. false advertising), threatining the president of the United States (Title 18 Section 871 of United States Code), obscenity (Miller vs California, 1973), "false statements of fact" (Gertz vs Robert Welch Inc, 1974), to name just a few
>Trying to report an illegal person (i.e. your civic duty, see: "civic duty to report crime and corruption") means you're the one who gets in trouble and possibly gets kicked out of your educational institution/workplace (see: Taylor Ragg)

Your speech isn't free, sorry burgertard

 

[PPEcel]

Lots of good points, but saying USA has the best free speech is a joke.

I want you to name a country whose free speech regime is better than that of the U.S., esp. with regards to inflammatory speech -- that is what "best" entails. Not once did I claim that the First Amendment's protections are absolute, just that Redditors misunderstand the 1A.

>"M..m..muh free speech." Nope. Speech can be restricted based on: intellectual property rights (Harper and Row vs Nation Enterprises, 1985), "fighting words"/threatening speech (Chaplinsky Vs New Hampshire, 1942), commercial speech (e.g. false advertising), threatining the president of the United States (Title 18 Section 871 of United States Code), obscenity (Miller vs California, 1973), "false statements of fact" (Gertz vs Robert Welch Inc, 1974), to name just a few

You clearly misunderstand Chaplinsky, Miller, and Gertz.

>Trying to report an illegal person (i.e. your civic duty, see: "civic duty to report crime and corruption") means you're the one who gets in trouble and possibly gets kicked out of your educational institution/workplace (see: Taylor Ragg)

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment

 

[WhoreCel95]

I want you to name a country whose free speech regime is better than that of the U.S., esp. with regards to inflammatory speech -- that is what "best" entails. Not once did I claim that the First Amendment's protections are absolute, just that Redditors misunderstand the 1A.

Ancient Rome, who pretty much invented free speech and freedom of religion. I know they don't exist any more, before you point that out. Countries with high freedom of media (New Zealand, Norway, etc) would count as well. I'd argue most countries, where saying nigger in public doesn't get you arrested. Redditors misunderstand a lot of shit.

You clearly misunderstand Chaplinsky, Miller, and Gertz.

Care to explain? I understand the outcome, just the fact that went to court proves there was a fundamental problem in the definition of free speech without a bunch of caveats and amendments.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment

Talking freely about someone (even if it's untrue slander) has everything to do with Free Speech.

 

[MentalistKebab]

Based and freedom of speech pilled.

Mirin high IQ individuals like @PPEcel doing God's work.

Most social media is still a private property tho.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

Based af post, holy shit! This should be pinned. I'd like to see the pinheads at leddit try to argue down this!