« Testing UBI in the Real World | Main | Friday open thread literary cage match »

September 30, 2021


But the defence was heard in court and rejected, so what grounds do you have for asserting its truth?

Come on, sir, you know full well that I did no such thing. Something can easily be false without being absurd on its face (which you explicitly claimed it was). And I'll warrant you see that repeatedly in court: people saying things which are entirely plausible, but wrong.

For my part, I do not regret being unfree to publish the view that a sportsman whose performance I wish to disparage resembles in some way a non-human ape.

I think the problematic part, legally, of the "speech" Charles says flows from "thoughtcrime" is in the publishing. The guy wasn't jailed for calling Sawyers a baboon to the person sitting on the next bar stool.

Plus it's a neat trick to make thought the crime by calling it "thoughtcrime." No one knows what anyone else is thinking at that level of specificity without it somehow being communicated.

You're allowed to think any damned thing you want. You just can't act on any damned thing you want, with "act" including communicating certain thoughts in certain ways. See, for example, terroristic threats and verbal assault.

Are these things are too basic to have to discuss with adults?

Godspeed, GftNC!

Like MacArthur, I will eventually return.

and we will look forward to that day.

take care of yourself GFTNC! and we'll see you soon...

You're allowed to think any damned thing you want. You just can't act on any damned thing you want, with "act" including communicating certain thoughts in certain ways. See, for example, terroristic threats and verbal assault.

On the legal standing of hate speech in the US.

"Rule 1. The First Amendment protects all ideas, loving, hateful, or in between....

Rule 2. Some speech is not protected by the First Amendment, but that's true regardless of whether it's bigoted or hateful...

Rule 3. Hate crime laws are constitutional, so long as they punish violence or vandalism, not speech..."
The 3 Rules of Hate Speech and the First Amendment: Here are three rules you should know about "Hate Speech" and the First Amendment

The Constitution according to Reason. Snore...

The Constitution according to Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment law professor at UCLA, not Reason.

The Constitution according to Reason. Snore...

Hey, they're not the only ones who start with the conclusion they want, and then twist the Constitution to make it seem like it's on their side. See a majority of the current Court.

I guess speech can't harm protected classes of people or infringe on their rights. I'm sure there have been some stupid and possibly unconstitutional hate crime laws enacted, but it doesn't make any and all of them that aren't limited to violence or vandalism unconstitutional.

Discussing it generally in the abstract is too easy. Make a detailed argument about a specific law. Then I might be able to agree or disagree.

Should someone be able to take out an ad in a major newspaper making the argument that members of some racial group don't deserve to live? If so, why? If not, why not? What if a bunch of them are murdered immediately afterward?

My mistake, it was CharlesWT, not wj, who falsely asserted the truth of the defendant's claim.

The other thing that CharlesWT missed in his rush to get on the denounce thoughtcrime train was this

Sentencing him at Birmingham Magistrates' Court, district judge Briony Clarke, said: "There is no place for racism or racist abuse online. This clearly, in my view, crosses the custody threshold.

"I assess the remorse you have for your actions as very minimal indeed."

While I don't have the transcript, I'd venture a guess that he insisted he didn't have a racist bone in his body, and he always hung out in facebook groups talking about BAME footballers to celebrate their contribution to the diversity of the Premiere League.


Factors indicating that it would not be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence:

Offender presents a risk/danger to the public;
Appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody;
History of poor compliance with court orders.

Factors indicating that it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence.
Strong personal mitigation;
Realistic prospect of rehabilitation;
Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact upon others.

I'd wager that the presence of the first bold point and the absence of the 2nd was important.

Late in the Dubya years, a guy in Boston was convicted for political speech, which they prosecuted as "material support a for terrorist group"

Since money==speech for political donations, then clearly speech==money.

That "equality" is a problem in both directions. Let's find out by prosecuting MAGA Jan 6th supporters.

folks like volokh are all for unlimited speech but it seems to come to a sreeching halt at the shop floor and the front page of the New York Times.

Conclusion: Fuck them.

"Amendment 14 Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Cut out their tongues. It's a Constitutional Duty.

today in word salad: Umbrella man is white supremacist.


refresher link not working

But here's a CBS News link instead

sigh, for me, this was the umbrella man



The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad