Re:Freedom of speech is in retreat
by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday June 07, 2016 @01:51PM
(#11856233)
Notice that your list has categories.
Laws regarding fraud and misrepresentation:
> * Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks
> * Slander and libel laws
> * Sharing information for insider trading
> * Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information
> * Slander and libel laws
> * Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe
The trend here is that the information is provably false or misleading. It isn't slander if it's true. You're allowed to use someone's trademark to refer to their products. You can't claim someone else's copyrighted words as your own but you can convey the same information in your own words and when you have a need to use the author's words there is fair use. Insider trading is fraud via a lie of omission -- publish the information and it isn't insider trading.
Professional confidentiality obligations:
> * HIPAA and medical information privacy laws
> * Breaching attorney-client privilege
> * Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!)
The defining characteristic is that you signed up for that profession. The Pentagon Papers were classified but The New York Times can still publish them because they never agreed not to. If the client blabs attorney-client privileged information to the other side or the press then they can use it.
Obscenity:
> * FCC and obscenity laws in US media
> * Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal)
These are, honestly, free speech violations, and often get struck down. But at least they're easy to cordon off.
The odd one out is juries, and there is a legitimate argument that we shouldn't do that, but it's also very old and so unlike anything else that it doesn't really generalize to anything.
And after you get through the whole list, there is something that still holds in the end: The press (including the people) can write and publish any not-provably-false story.
But now people are being threatened by angry mobs for criticizing inhumane religious practices or publishing a contrary opinion about pronoun usage.
Laws regarding fraud and misrepresentation:
The trend here is that the information is provably false or misleading. It isn't slander if it's true. You're allowed to use someone's trademark to refer to their products. You can't claim someone else's copyrighted words as your own but you can convey the same information in your own words and when you have a need to use the author's words there is fair use. Insider trading is fraud via a lie of omission -- publish the information and it isn't insider trading.Professional confidentiality obligations:
The defining characteristic is that you signed up for that profession. The Pentagon Papers were classified but The New York Times can still publish them because they never agreed not to. If the client blabs attorney-client privileged information to the other side or the press then they can use it.Obscenity:
These are, honestly, free speech violations, and often get struck down. But at least they're easy to cordon off.The odd one out is juries, and there is a legitimate argument that we shouldn't do that, but it's also very old and so unlike anything else that it doesn't really generalize to anything.
And after you get through the whole list, there is something that still holds in the end: The press (including the people) can write and publish any not-provably-false story.
But now people are being threatened by angry mobs for criticizing inhumane religious practices or publishing a contrary opinion about pronoun usage.