Re:Ellen Pao: The Trolls Are Winning the Battle for the Inte...
by msandford on Thursday July 16, 2015 @04:07PM
(#9899586)
> I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric).
That's very interesting. Could you elaborate please? I'd really like to know more.
Re:Ellen Pao: The Trolls Are Winning the Battle for the Inte...
by Lawtonfogle on Thursday July 16, 2015 @04:30PM
(#9899716)
Images/videos are considered speech. There was actually a few different First Amendment cases concerning different images/videos being made illegal, but of those only one ban clearly stuck (a second ban was struck down but reinstated with slightly different laws and is still waiting a second SCOTUS ruling on it).
(As a side note to any lawyers, is text protected speech when it originates as a description of an actual harmful act of which video/images would not be legal speech? I don't think it was made illegal, but I wonder if it could be (at least if it were at some level of detail).)
Speaking of which, why is anti-vaxxer rhetoric protected even though it contributes to the harm of children. I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric).