Reload this Page Cyber Attack Causing No Damage

[Griff]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Griff, you need to bone up on your first amendment. There are specific limits to free or protected speech.

Incitement to riot or to commit crimes is not protected speech.
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/ar...se-incitement/

One of my teachers described the first amendment as a pie chart representing all types of speech or expression. Slowly, slice after slice representing expression that is not protected, e.g. obscenity, slander, libel, is removed we are left with a rather thin sliver that represents what is protected and where.

I would posit that each of those slices were taken away by an established counter-revolutionary government after the radicals lost control of their revolution. Incitement and slander were exactly what the revolutionary generation engaged in.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Griff

I would posit that each of those slices were taken away by an established counter-revolutionary government after the radicals lost control of their revolution. Incitement and slander were exactly what the revolutionary generation engaged in.

Here is a list of exceptions. For an explanation of each one check the wikipedia article

1. Incitement
2. False statements of fact
3. Obscenity
4. Child pornography
5. Fighting words and offensive speech
6. Threats
7. Speech owned by others
8. Commercial speech
   
9. Restrictions based on special capacity of Government:

Government as Employer
Government as Regulator of the Airwaves
Government as Educator
Government as Subsidizer/Speaker
Government as Regulator of the Bar
Government as Controller of the Military
Government as Prison Warden
Government as Regulator of Immigration

[Griff]

I am certain we are have two completely different, wholly unrelated conversations. You are talking about free speech as interpreted by our government. I'm talking about organizations that are operating outside of legal frameworks, although one fancies itself a government. My reference to free speech was to get people to notice that speech was being defended by suppressing speech. A little irony to introduce the idea of electronic attacks on a low tech insurgency.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Griff

I am certain we are have two completely different, wholly unrelated conversations. You are talking about free speech as interpreted by our government. I'm talking about organizations that are operating outside of legal frameworks, although one fancies itself a government. My reference to free speech was to get people to notice that speech was being defended by suppressing speech. A little irony to introduce the idea of electronic attacks on a low tech insurgency.

Ahh, yes. Now I see. The first amendment is bit of a bugbear for me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

My reference to free speech was to get people to notice that speech was being defended by suppressing speech.

One type of free speech that is a threat to all is one that promotes hate.

One can demand protection of free speech using rhetoric. Or one can demand protection of free speech by also knowing how, what, and why other types of free speech are so important and necessary. Only moderates also appreciate the many reasons how and why.

Defined are two completely different people - an extremist and a moderate. An extremist will demand free speech only because that is the political agenda they are ordered to worship. Free speech (hate) that promoted 8 million dead Jews was advocated by extremists. Others who also learn underlying details - ie the purpose of that free speech - know that hate speech is dangerous to the purpose of free speech and to the advancment of mankind.

Free speech that promotes hate is dangerous to all. Free speech that also discusses underlying details - the whys - (rahter than soundbyte rhetoric) is essential for the advancement of mankind. Free speech that advicates hate should be viciously attacked as destructive even to all other types of free speech.