I protect hate speech. While some hateful speech might otherwise meet the test for another exception, there is no exception to me for speech that is bigoted, racist, or hateful.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Yes, they do. But this approach is just trolling: saying that someone is WRONG about the law only to reveal you’re thinking about what you think the law OUGHT to be, not what all the courts say it is.
Yup. "Courts say X when they should say Y because..." is productive contribution to the discourse about law. "X is wrong! Y is what the law is!" when courts say X consistently is trolly/disingeneous/misinformation.
Also when ppl criticize a bad circuit decision or a bad district court decision they are implicitly appealing to a higher authority (ie the next court up) that can spontaneously tell them that their decision is bad and wrong.
This is besides the point, but I find it so weird that the American justice system wants civilians to decide someone's fate, but then makes them pretend to be experts. Having a jury of laypeople feels like an effort to get a just result, not a letter of the law result. Judges could do letter of law.
Not just US although the right to a jury trial is a little stronger in some US states than in some other places which have a similar ‘common law’ system
That’s not quite an accurate understanding of the role of the jury. The jury finds facts. The judge is the expert on the law and instructs the jury to apply the facts that it decides in accord with that law.
That’s what the lawyers are for. They must argue their side according to the law. During arguments the jury will become very educated about that particular case, and the defendant’s innocence. I think jurors can be very competent with their decision. The key is are the lawyers & judge competent.
But that's not true. Jury nullification exists when you decide you don't like what the law IS, and want to decide otherwise. You, as a juror, have every right to decide against what the law is.
That's because they don't want you to know that you can see evidence that someone is guilty but as a jury of their peers you can actually all decide they're innocent if the law written is wrong.
Good call, but hasn’t Bruen taught us we must apply government’s inability to restrict speech only on those social media networks that existed during the founding fathers’ time period? So no, they can’t restrict what you say on Usenet and MySpace, but restrict away on Xittter, Facebook, even Tumblr!
See, I feel like that's a totally consistent and rational position. As long as they recognize that what they believe SHOULD be the interpreted law of the land is NOT the interpreted law of the land.
I know Google is craptacular now, but you’d think these people would at least try to look up “Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment?” before posting.
As always it's more complex than the black & white discussion above.
✅ Hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, even if it is offensive or discriminatory.
❌ However, it is NOT protected if it involves incitement to violence, true threats, fighting words, harassment, or obscenity.
I am proud that our first amendment was the declaration of freedom to speak. I hope that soon we include the tangible freedom to know who is speaking. Public anonymity is ruining the conversation. Real names on every messaging UX we can do that much
Whenever I log in, I just make sure I have the Blue Blocker extension running. It doesn't make the site less run-by-a-nazi, but it DOES make you not have to see the paid-for vanity splodges spew their garbage.
Elon's a nutter, but let's not think that the first amendment (or law in general) is the only place where some concept of free speech is valuable. Building a culture of free speech isn't just a legal matter.
community websites should not have free speech in the same way the first amendment guarantees. we have examples going back to the beginning of the Internet about why this is a bad idea.
Comments
"jury nullification".
Bit of a quandary for them, what?
✅ Hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment, even if it is offensive or discriminatory.
❌ However, it is NOT protected if it involves incitement to violence, true threats, fighting words, harassment, or obscenity.
(Not blaming you for Nazis, of course.)