A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

Re:A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume by Reelin on Monday April 06, 2020 @07:32PM (#22798983)

The "seven words" only applies to _broadcast_ mediums (television and radio) because of the limited shared medium thing. I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning, but that's life.

More generally, protections against the government for personal speech are more complete in the US (both in principle and in practice) than any other country I'm aware of. A few examples might be the Westboro Baptist Church or the infamous Brandenburg v. Ohio case. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

(My view is necessarily US-centric though, so do feel free to point out any counterexamples I might not be aware of.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume by kenned3 on Tuesday April 07, 2020 @06:36PM (#22808197)

Again, this is just my anecdotal view based on only 5 years in the US. We (Canada) have equal rights and so i always found it odd how often i was told about "Free speech" but couldnt see anything different in the US vs Canada.

we do have "hate laws" here, and you see others commenting and outlining how this is a "restriction" on free speech, but if you look at the law, you will see the US has something similiar as well:

Canada: https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-rest...

US : https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1204/breach-of-...

[ Parent | on HN ]