Freedom of Speech is not absolute and free of all consequences. You cannot harm others with your speech (shout “fire” in a theatre, commit libel, commit fraud, commit perjury, etc). The Fairness Doctrine used to control the news media and it should be reinstated.
The FD didn’t “control the news media.”. It didn’t even apply to “the news media”. It applied only to individual local broadcast *stations*. So what exactly, specifically, do you believe it required stations to do?
wow -that was a fast block
The first amendment protects harming others with your speech. “Joe Smith is an evil person — don’t buy anything from him”. Protected. “Vaccines are poison!”. Protected. “[X]s are subhuman and should be rounded up and put in camps!” Protected. All those harm people and all are protected by the 1stA.
Joe Smith can sue for the first example if it causes him a loss in sales and you cannot prove he is actually evil. You can be charged with manslaughter if the second example causes a death, and you cannot prove vaccines are actually poison. You can be fired from your job for the third example.
You’re very wrong on the first two. “He’s evil” is not defamation in the US since opinions aren’t defamatory here. I mean he can sue but he’ll be laughed out of court. Also, I don’t have to prove anything. The plaintiff is the one with the burden of proof.
The first is called “libel” and yes, you can be sued.
You can't be sued for opinions. Only for false statements of fact. "He's evil" is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
As for the second one that’s easily rebutted by the fact people say that all time and no one’s been charged. Heck, people say far worse — like writing books or telling people with cancer they should do quack treatments and then those people die (well hello Steve Jobs) and they haven’t been charged.
Laxity in enforcement does not remove the law.
So we have this mysterious law that you have no citations for that many many many many people who have openly, proudly did the thing have never been charged with. But it's a law. Riiiiiiight.
Penal Code 192b PC sets forth California law as to involuntary manslaughter – which is unlawfully causing the death of another person by acting with criminal negligence. The key feature of involuntary manslaughter is that it does not require intent to kill another person.
State (and federal) laws cannot override the constitution so that law is unenforceable to the extent it conflicts with what the courts have said is protected free speech. Also, I see you're blocking lawyers. What are you so afraid of?
As for the 3rd one, that’s irrelevant since the First Amendment does not and never has applied to private entities. It only applies to the govt and the govt cannot prosecute you for saying that since it is protected by the First Amendment
@badfcctakes.bsky.social I can't see her posts because she blocked me (no idea why) but she's another one who hasn't got a fucking clue about 1A but is hell-bound to argue about it anyway.
On the third one, you can still suffer consequences and if you violate someone’s civil rights in so doing you may be prosecuted.
Yes, if you actually go try to grab someone and put them in camp you can be prosecuted for that. But you cannot be prosecuted for *saying* it. Incitement of lawless action, even violent action, is protected free speech unless it's intended to and likely to incite *imminent* lawless action.
You may (MAY!) for saying it during an arrest if you’re a law enforcement officer. You may for saying it in a hiring committee. And you may in any setting where doing so violates someone’s civil rights.
You're not going to be criminally prosecuted for saying that in a hiring committee. Fired? Sure. Open your company to civil liability? Perhaps, depending on the company's response. And why don't you tell us what settings, where the speaker isn't an on-the-clock govt employee, those would be?
Why? Because I’m bored to tears. Go sealion someone else.
And courts have consistently held "imminent" to mean essentially "right now". Not tomorrow, not later today now, but now.
Lawyer here. And you're clearly not a lawyer and clearly don't understand what is and is not protected speech. For your own sake, don't embarrass yourself any further.
On the third one, sure someone could be fired, but most employees in this country are at-will employees and could be fired without any reason at all.
I have, as EU guy, not understood the current "have cancelled contract/employment" orgie.
In the U.S., if you are very lucky, you have an employment contract that requires your employer to pay you something if they fire you (and it isn't for cause). But they can still fire you. And lots of people get absolutely nothing if their employer decides to let them go.
Thinking, US/Orsted offshore turbine contract that is now a security issue
I have never looked at it and I don't know.
Also, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Canceling a contract between two big entities or two countries is not the same thing as firing an individual from their employment. Anyway, anytime there's a contract, the specific terms apply.
Thx for clarifying my fuzzy question
But, what abt govt contracts to do this and that for X number of years?
Everything depends on what the actual contract says. If you don't have a contract specifically saying otherwise, they can fire you. Or are you talking about government appointments? That can be different. E.g., obviously, with a federal judge, it's a lifetime appointment so they can't be fired
Oogh
Apparently, lioness or whatever her name is doesn't want to listen to any actual lawyers discussing the law, because she just blocked me. Fortunately, for her, speaking out of your ass about the law is protected by the first amendment.
Yes, she blocked me instantly.Several of us spend a chunk of time explaining the FD and 1A to people. About 1/2 of them get it. The other half block.We are not all attorneys (I am but happily former. - I escaped) but all are very knowledgeable.
I think you're overly generous with that "about 1/2 of them get it" figure :) (Oh, and I have been blocked too by this clown, unsurprisingly.)
Jeez, I must be one of the cool guys now - I am blocked too.