Re:Canada to make online hate speech a crime punishable by fine
by int_19h on Sunday June 27, 2021 @10:41PM
(#27657542)
It's also worth mentioning that the Schenck case was about distribution of leaflets with anti-war (WW1) propaganda and encouraging draft dodging. So not only there's an obvious slippery slope in this argument, but it was exercised as soon as it was presented.
Re:Canada to make online hate speech a crime punishable by fine
by a1369209993 on Monday June 28, 2021 @12:08AM
(#27658069)
To be fair, that just puts it with "those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither", "information wants to be free" and "I'm not my brother's keeper" in the category of aphorisms that are valid as typically used despite their original coinage being in service of bullshit. (Edit: or possibly honest mistakes for the information one; I don't remember offhand.)
That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged on "dangerous and false" and was reconsidered in Brandenburg v Ohio[1] and the standard was raised to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Effectively:
- If the "dangerous" speech is false or likely to "incite imminent lawless action", you have trouble.
- If the "dangerous" speech is debatable as true or not OR debatable on if it would "incite imminent lawless action", then it's way less clear.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio