• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

KillerBee Comments on the First Amendment

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
What if the hate spewed on this forum towards chritsinans, whites, Republicans, etc causes someone to get attacked or murdered? Should that be silenced? Islam seems to breed bombers and people that drive trucks through crowds, should that be silenced? There are Imam's that preach hate, we can’t have hate. The government's job is to regulate that and silence them.

Ideas run the risk of bad results. Liberals understood this, and had the courage to defend freedom even so. When bad things happen address that, enforce justice. But trying to ban ideas is literally an Orwellian dystopia.
Ah, I see someone has finally gotten their Gold Plated Victim Card... So not American... So plonk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54
Mar 11, 2004
19,511
1,888
126
You're half right about this, and 100% wrong in all your remaining comments.

In the US, even if the actor is 18 or over, it's still kiddie porn if he or she is portraying a fictional character who is under 18. In such cases, the actor could be 24 years old and it's still kiddie porn. So it need not be a violation of the rights of a minor. We just punish it because we don't like the effect the portrayal has on people watching it. We don't want people to see it.



Entirely incorrect. Under Miller v. California, the state may prohibit "obscenities" meeting a definition set forth by the SCOTUS in that case. It's a vague standard, but the federal government and all 50 states have obscenities laws. Traditionally they've only enforced them against the most extreme pornography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

For example, the pornographer Paul Little aka "Max Hardcore" spent 2 and 1/2 years in federal prison in Texas on obscenities charges, from 2009-2012. He was also charged at various times with kiddie porn but it was the obscenities charges that landed him in jail.

Apparently the state lost a major obscenities case about 5 years back and both the feds and states haven't been enforcing these laws since. They remain on the books, however. And since they're structured to meet the Miller standard, they are constitutional unless Miller is ever overturned.



Do you even check sources before opining on legal issues? I'll just link wiki for you on this one.

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



You're wrong again. Liability for false advertising isn't based on harm caused. States have false advertising statutes to punish false advertising whether or not there is harm or a complaining citizen. But the standards are quite permissive. They are allowed to engage in mere "puffery" which is something like better than lying but worse than telling the truth. It has to be an out and out factual lie to be subject to liability.

It's a criminal action typically pursued by the state's AG against the advertiser. Private individuals have no right to pursue the theory, only the state. Individuals can sue advertisers if they suffered financial harm, but then it would be fraud, not false advertising. The state can pursue it just for being false. It's not often pursued, but I believe all 50 states have such laws. Example:

https://www.shouselaw.com/false-advertising

Four strikes and you're out.
Yeah, not sure why the "twins" constantly have to show how massively ridiculously fucked their starting point for making arguments is, but well there ya go. The saddest part is they're capable of using logic (somewhat, more than I can say for many other similarly opinioned persons - you'd think it'd be a tipoff to them that when they're constantly sharing the same opinions with incredibly stupid people that basically never know what they're talking about and also show that the basic logic of their brains is simply broken, that maybe they'd rethink their positions), they're just seemingly incapable of vetting their information in any way beforehand (well that and them trying to take a stance of authority on subjects when they're just posting their opinions but then expecting people to bow down to them and when they don't then they start claiming people are doing all the things they're doing - you know standard conservative behavior), so that them spewing misinformation just ends up twisting their logic as well.

Just you wait, they'll activate their Wonder Twin powers and become Quibbles 'n Bits, because they cannot ever admit being wrong about something. Pages of quibbles.

Which now that I think of it, we should start referring to right wing quibbles as squibbles as they sure like to pantomime every little thing as though its some massive wound. Plus I imagine that if they were written out they'd resemble squiggled scribbles.
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2004
19,511
1,888
126
You demanded that I be banned from here because I insinuated that you were a racist.
More to the point, you consistently argue that people are trying take away your free speech because they disagree with your speech. What is the purpose of such hyperbole, I wonder?
Damn you must've really gotten to him, I'm pretty sure I've straight up called him racist (because he is, and he wishes he could be in real life, but now he's scared shitless because they're coming after the pathetic bitches that try to work out their racist beliefs online by hiding their disgusting opinions behind anonymity), and I don't recall him ever becoming that big of a crybaby about it.

Also, come on, you just basically put out the bat signal for realibrad to come and start his quibbling too.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
46,349
5,680
126
You are a racist. I don’t care if you’re banned for such.

As far as this: you consistently argue that people are trying take away your free speech because they disagree with your speech

Yes I argue that people seem to be trying to suppress speech (more importantly the ideas), and yes I think that’s a bad direction to go in. Is it hyperbole? I mean what is this thread about then?
I'm a racist? Really? Would you care to provide an example of that? As I recall, I wasn't the one who said the black South Africans could never learn to farm because they are black. And if you're trying to claim that I'm racist against whites, you should know that I am white.

This thread is about taking one person's dumb speech being interpreted as a threat to all speech. It's silly because 1) the 1a cannot be 'edited,' whatever that even means, 2) the SCOTUS has already ruled definitely on this issue, and the odds of the ruling ever being overturned are effectively zero.

Meanwhile, what I am arguing is that you and the alt-right have weaponized the free speech issue as a means to suppress speech that disagrees with you. As in, you believe that you should be able to say anything you want without social consequences, like someone speaking back in disagreement. You believe that you should be force private parties to publish your speech even when they disagree with it, or force private employers to retain employees whose speech has harmed their company's business and reputation. And those things you're trying to suppress for the benefit of your free speech are in fact someone else's free speech.
Defending the right to free speech you disagree with also means defending the right to free speech that disagrees with you.

But anyway, I'm curious, what are these ideas that are being suppressed? The only thing that I see coming out of the alt-right are bad ideas. In particular, flawed collectivist ideology that puts individuals into vast monolithic groups in order to reinforce an 'us vs them' mentality, and a delusion of superiority based on being part of the 'us' group rather than on any individual merit. And there's a reason some people want that idea suppressed: it leads only to war.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
46,349
5,680
126
Expecting moderators to maintain a civil discussion on a private forum has NOTHING to do with government-regulated speech.
I would normally agree, except that that comment you quoted was made to Ugly, and he is always arguing that efforts made by private entities to maintain civility are de facto the same as government-regulated speech.
For example, he once argued at length that Alex Jones and Infowars being banned from Facebook was an infringement of free speech. 'Deplatforming,' as though some people have a right to be provided with a soapbox paid for by others.
And I was reminding him that he once demanded that I be 'deplatformed.'
So anyway, context matters. Of course, it is not an infringement of free speech for the moderators of this private forum to enforce a certain level of civility from the users of their private property. I am not the one here that you need to have this discussion with.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
46,349
5,680
126

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
30,519
1,700
126
why is it that when i read the OPs posts, it is in a Russian accent?
разве вы не знали, что у русских есть аккаунты на всех этих и других форумах?
ta lose translation - did you not know that the russians have accountas all over these and other forums? j/k
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,352
3,871
126
Now that OffedHimselfBee is gone it might be a good time to note that Trump is expressing dismay at his faves being taken down by private concerns to which the First doesn't apply in a comment about "monitoring the situation".

As a private person, Trump can do that as well as bitching and complaining, but one thing we've learned over his tenure that there is little distinction between Citizen vs President Trump and he just might see fit to use the Office to regulate the rights of others forcing his sense of speech onto private persons or entities to suit the Imperious President. That would find full support with some here which merely betrays them yet again of being against our way of life and Constitutional principles.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
30,519
1,700
126
I am truly surprised this went to 61 posts!!
This is one subject there should be no discussing!
There will always be consequesnces for some types of speech!!
God Bless you all!!
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,352
445
126
The tell-tale sign of a troll is they tend to assume that their lies are real, and thus that people are upset at them for have been exposed, rather than it's because they're just telling lies, making false accusations, and other discussing in bad faith.
Almost like you were looking into a "mirror" while composing your response.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,354
126
I would normally agree, except that that comment you quoted was made to Ugly, and he is always arguing that efforts made by private entities to maintain civility are de facto the same as government-regulated speech.
For example, he once argued at length that Alex Jones and Infowars being banned from Facebook was an infringement of free speech. 'Deplatforming,' as though some people have a right to be provided with a soapbox paid for by others.
And I was reminding him that he once demanded that I be 'deplatformed.'
So anyway, context matters. Of course, it is not an infringement of free speech for the moderators of this private forum to enforce a certain level of civility from the users of their private property. I am not the one here that you need to have this discussion with.

Vic lying again, go figure. I did bring up that that it’s worth having a conversation about these companies, what they actually are, what the ramifications are given how society has adopted them and their near monopolistic reach, and how it’s one of those 21st century problems that the internet has created to address. And yes I have reservations about the collusion of these companies to deplatform someone from a huge part of the internet. They have the right to protect their property for sure. I’m not disagreeing with that. What’s the solution? I have no idea, there might not be one. Question has been raised and it’s up to society to figure out.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,323
1,354
126
As I recall, I wasn't the one who said the black South Africans could never learn to farm because they are black.

Nor was I. I never said they couldn’t farm because they were black. Keep lying though Vic, we wouldn’t expect anything else.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
46,349
5,680
126
Nor was I. I never said they couldn’t farm because they were black. Keep lying though Vic, we wouldn’t expect anything else.
I'm not lying. You're just twisting my words. As I recall quite clearly, you said they couldn't farm (without giving any reason) and I kept asking you why they couldn't farm (if that reason wasn't because they are black), until you just flipped out and claimed I called you a racist (when I didn't).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
46,349
5,680
126
Vic lying again, go figure. I did bring up that that it’s worth having a conversation about these companies, what they actually are, what the ramifications are given how society has adopted them and their near monopolistic reach, and how it’s one of those 21st century problems that the internet has created to address. And yes I have reservations about the collusion of these companies to deplatform someone from a huge part of the internet. They have the right to protect their property for sure. I’m not disagreeing with that. What’s the solution? I have no idea, there might not be one. Question has been raised and it’s up to society to figure out.
That's like your fallback isn't it? Everytime I say something you don't want to hear, you just claim I'm lying.
As for your deep concern with supposedly no solution, society is figuring it out, and we're watching it happen. Just because you're free to say whatever you want does not mean that your speech has no consequences. Start your own platform if you don't like it. See how those 2 things together are the solution to all your concern?

Meanwhile, society at large was never going to take seriously the free speech concerns of alt-right free speech warriors who hate, disrupt, and suppress every speech and belief other than their own.
 

Luna1968

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2019
1,051
466
96
i dont understand what the two people are talking about. dont they understand the difference between a private company controlling what is said compared to a government?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
12,126
1,926
126
Damn you must've really gotten to him, I'm pretty sure I've straight up called him racist (because he is, and he wishes he could be in real life, but now he's scared shitless because they're coming after the pathetic bitches that try to work out their racist beliefs online by hiding their disgusting opinions behind anonymity), and I don't recall him ever becoming that big of a crybaby about it.

Also, come on, you just basically put out the bat signal for realibrad to come and start his quibbling too.
lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

ASK THE COMMUNITY