Progressive Politics

4864 readers

443 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

Fascist paramilitary thug threatens to arrest US citizen for exercising his 1st amendment rights (cdn.social.linux.pizza)

submitted 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) by CubitOom@infosec.pub to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/50566589

Video Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Idk about that.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. As a general rule, lies are protected, with limited exceptions such as defamation, fraud, false advertising, perjury, and lying under oath during an official government proceeding. Even deliberate lies about the government are fully protected.

Hate speech is not a general exception to First Amendment protection.[2][3][4][5][6] Per Wisconsin v. Mitchell, hate crime sentence enhancements do not violate First Amendment protections because they do not criminalize speech itself, but rather use speech as evidence of motivation, which is constitutionally permissible.[7]

Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded to uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

I guess it depends on how obscenity is defined.

[–] earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The law is quite clear about this. Not just in the US.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[38] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[39] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[40][41]

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Watts v United States established that you can literally threaten to kill the president and it's protected by free speech.

[–] earmuff@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Threatening the president of the United States is a class D felony under United States CodeTitle 18, Section 871.[52][53] It is punishable by up to 5 years in prison,[52] a maximum fine of $250,000,[54] a $100 special assessment,[55]and up to 3 years of supervised release.[56]

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

The determination is made whether or not the threat can be proven to be true.

If I say I'm going to kill the president and it's proven that 1) I've taken no actual steps toward a plan and 2) I don't have the means to do so anyway - the threat is considered 'untrue'.