Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by joe_the_user on Thursday October 15, 2020 @07:51PM (#24795786)

You are incorrect here. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one litmus test for speech not protected by the 1st Amendment. And telling someone to grab a wire that you know is electrified and they don't is pretty violent.

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by arminiusreturns on Thursday October 15, 2020 @08:28PM (#24796050)

How many times do we have to go over the fact that the fire issue is actually proves the point. It was a bad ruling used to silence Yiddish WW1 protestors that referenced that hypothetical in the first place! So tired of seeing this regurgitated so much.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by dahfizz on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:31PM (#24796830)

You seem to be equating unprotected speech with violence. Perjury is also not protected under the 1st Amendment but there's nothing violent about it.

The only speech I would consider to even approach violence is a direct threat. And even that isn't really violence - it's the threat of violence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by nobody9999 on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:56PM (#24796990)

>The only speech I would consider to even approach violence is a direct threat. And even that isn't really violence - it's the threat of violence.

And credible threats of violence aren't protected speech either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by lawnchair_larry on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:46AM (#24797574)

You seem to be agreeing with me. Replied to wrong comment? We’re saying the same thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by camelite on Friday October 16, 2020 @04:27AM (#24798797)

Your syllogism goes something like this:

Shouting fire is speech. Shouting fire is illegal Violence is illegal. Therefore spec is violence.

I don't even know where to begin picking it apart. It has the -form- of an argument, but...

These are strange times.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by lawnchair_larry on Friday October 16, 2020 @12:44AM (#24797564)

You are incorrect here. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one litmus test for speech not protected by the 1st Amendment.

How does this contradict anything I said? I said it was not violent. It isn’t.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by nobody9999 on Thursday October 15, 2020 @10:55PM (#24796983)

>"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one litmus test

Nitpick: It's not "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" it's "Falsely Shouting fire in a crowded theater"

If there were a fire, I'd certainly want to know about it, wouldn't you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reig... by airtonix on Thursday October 15, 2020 @08:35PM (#24796103)

again. wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]