Comment

Comment on Alex Jones' Infowars to Be Shut Down, Assets Liquidated

So your clear on this going forward; the first amendment protects a persons speech from repercussions from the government. That’s it. Not from aggrieved parties. Not even from businesses deciding to sue. It means your city or state can’t censor you - the rest of society ABSOLUTELY can tho.

Free speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want. Free speech means the government has to argue you back, if it decides, and not use the power of the state, and it’s monopoly of the use of violence against you.

If you want to burn a cross, go ahead. But you’re also free to experience the consequences within yr community - the government isn’t going to _protect _your decision to be inflammatory.

What I want to know, is if money is free speech and the government cannot impinge on that right, then how the fuck can the government charge us for ANYTHING, be that fines or services. All should of been rendered moot with citizens united.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sj_zero ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Where do you think the 1.5 billion dollar judgement came from? God?
- SoylentBlake@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Ok, the source of the judgement doesn’t eclipse me, nor do I see how that could be derived but you got there somehow so…
  
  I’m speculating on the whether citizens united rescinds the gmnts ability to demand money, writ large, as that would impinge our 1st amendment. Punitive judgements, between separate parties neither of which are the government such as with Jones v Sandy Hook parents, I would assume wouldnt be effected because the judge is basically performing arbitrage. The DOL, permitting, and taxes are wholly separate issues. Likewise the EPA bringing a corp to court over pollution, or the SEC against bad actors illegally manipulating pump and dump. Not that cases like that couldn’t exist, but not with a government agency as an aggrieved party.
  
  Ya follow? I don’t think its a difficult thought experiment.
  
  source
Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

So your clear on this going forward; the first amendment protects a persons speech from repercussions from the government. That’s it. Not from aggrieved parties. Not even from businesses deciding to sue. It means your city or state can’t censor you - the rest of society ABSOLUTELY can tho.

I actually think the first amendment is to protect you from any kind of oppression by anyone, including your employer.

The government should ensure that your boss can’t fire you because you have the wrong opinion or some such.

I also do not understand the idea that he has the wrong opinion, you can sue him…!

To clarify, though: in matters of private affairs, it can constitute harassment or slander to knowingly spread lies that impact someone’s reputation with the design to curtail their ability to exercise their rights or do business.

But a different standard is applied to things in the public sphere - the wild speculation of people during a criminal trial makes sense, and any kind of discourse on publicly relevant events makes sense…

While it would be highly inappropriate to claim you are practicing free speech and serving the public interests by spreading malicious lies you know to be untrue about the woman down the street and her affair with the mailman.

source