Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

Re:Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectua... by comte7092 on Wednesday February 15, 2023 @11:04PM (#34814849)

A real lawyer would know about Lloyd corp v tanner and be able to contextualize the fact that most of this controversy exists because it is legal to limit speech in the ways we are debating all over the internet.

People saying “we should limit it to what the law says” don’t make a ton of sense… because the law says that Twitter limiting speech is perfectly acceptable.

The first amendment doesn’t even apply in civil cases. Everything you listed aren’t exceptions to free speech, they are positive constructions as to the kinds of speech that you can make a civil claim of injury over. As such, they are not exhaustive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectua... by garbagecoder on Thursday February 16, 2023 @11:20AM (#34820691)

Real lawyers don't necessarily know every case citation. Real law students and googlers might. You get a general sense of how things work.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectua... by comte7092 on Thursday February 16, 2023 @11:31AM (#34820892)

I guess what I should have said was that they’d have a sense of the operative case law in the area they were speaking on. I don’t think that is too high of an expectation. That case wasn’t something I had to google and I’m not in school currently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectua... by garbagecoder on Friday February 17, 2023 @02:21PM (#34839064)

If that's their area of the law. Being a lawyer isn't about memorizing everything. It's about knowing how things work more broadly. Writing memos about the current law is for law students and junior associates unless it's your narrow focus area.

[ Parent | on HN ]