Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe...
by icebraining on Monday July 16, 2018 @05:09AM
(#17539781)
There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US.
That's not true: see "seven dirty words".
Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe...
by AmericanChopper on Monday July 16, 2018 @05:21AM
(#17539830)
The Supreme Court ruling on that case held that broadcasting content into people’s homes is materially different to public speech.
Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe...
by icebraining on Monday July 16, 2018 @05:52AM
(#17539946)
So if the UK courts rule that posting on Twitter/FB is materially different then it's all fine?
Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe...
by AmericanChopper on Monday July 16, 2018 @06:29AM
(#17540142)
If twitter stopped operating on the internet, and started terrestrially broadcasting their content into people’s homes then you might have a point.
Re:Judge Orders Los Angeles Times to Delete Part of Publishe...
by dragonwriter on Monday July 16, 2018 @09:09AM
(#17540988)
> It’s not silly at all, because that is literally a law in Canada.
Except it's literally not; that was a deliberate misrepresentation popularized by people like Jordan Peterson. [0]
> There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US
Incorrect, see literally the entire field of obscenity law.
[0] http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...
There are also 0 restrictions on offensiveness in the US. Any restrictions on speech are restrictions on other crimes. You can’t incite violence for example. If your straw man of what free speech means we’re true, then a gang leader could freely sit behind a desk and direct others to commit crime on his behalf all day because all he’s doing is speaking, right?...