(03-21-2024 04:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: What is “demonstrably false”? Please be specific.
I was and did.
I said... 'other than illegal content' and you came back with an example of disclosing 'troop movements during a time of war'... which IS illegal.
Quote:I don’t think you have the issues straight in this particular case.
You have a history of creating 'issues' that are not in the pleadings... so if you think I'm not addressing the issues, maybe that's simply because you see different issues than I do.
I'm not a scotus justice and neither are you. I'm responding SOLELY to her 'hamstringing' comment... because that comment is the entire intent of the Constitution.
You don't solve the government's problem of being 'hamstrung' by the court ignoring the Constitution to make their jobs easier. If you can't Constitutionally pass a law to accomplish your goals then that's likely because your goals are unconstitutional.
Quote:Quote:Quote:By your rationale "unmoderated (other than illegal content)" is all fair game.
Absolutely. That's what the 1st amendment says.
So any attempt by the government, in any manner, to have an input to stop a clear and present danger from being spread in social media mechanisms should be prohibited, That sounds fairly stupid.
Of course it sounds stupid... so why did you say it? I certainly didn't. Just another example of you saying something stupid and assigning it to me... and then acting 'offended' when I more directly call you stupid.
If there is a clear and present danger, like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre... then such speech is already prohibited. The problem for the government here is that there is very little that anyone can put on the internet that would in any way resemble the 'fire in a crowded theatre' statement. At best, they have situations where 'unreasonable' people might react improperly... and 'how unreasonable people might react' has never been the bar set for our conduct.
Quote:Quote:The specifics of this case and her overall comments, I did not mention... intentionally.
Perhaps you should. That is the context of her ‘hamstring’ comment.
I don't care what the context is. Hamstringing the government is precisely the JOB of the Constitution.
Note that I haven't chastised her in any way... other than to note that what she is complaining about, regardless of the context is a feature of our Constitution, not a flaw.
Quote:Generally speaking your last sentence is correct. Generally speaking you are *also* responding to generalized “hamstring” comment without any background, reference, or context to either the situation from which it arose, or the specific context that it is asked in.
In essence you aren’t even responding to *her* comment at that point, mind you.
Precisely. Hence I didn't really mention her name... just the comment.
If you want to give it context and talk about that, why don't you give it context... rather than your pattern of telling other people to read stuff that YOU want them to care about but they don't??
It's not my job to decipher your point. It's yours to make it clear... and you have not.
to wit....
Quote:Quote:Let's back up a second, Tanq.
I dealt with the *exact* hypothetical you gave...
One of a few to show the context. Yes, yes you did immediately in the post I am responding to. But not any of the others designed to be non-criminal, and an immediate danger.
You didn't give me any others for two paragraphs in post 3715.... and 'non-criminal, immediate danger' is a rather broad stroke. If you're suggesting that providing false information during a pandemic presents an immediate danger, you are ignoring that the declaration of a state of emergency grants broad temporary powers... including the power to suspend all sorts of constitutional rights.... vastly more broad than 'everyday' for the government.
So if you want me to address a specific issue on the VERY limited context that I've given that people's rights generally come BEFORE making things easy for the government... then you're going to have to give me a specific situation... and not direct me to 2 1/2 hours of legal debate to find it for myself.
Said simply... I don't think I need to do that because there are 9 justices... and most of them seem to generally agree with me on most things... but I am somewhat concerned about what I see as an increasing number of attempts by the left to accomplish through the courts what they cannot through the legislature.... and 'enabling' (the opposite of hamstringing) the government to limit constitutional rights, regardless of context would be one of those concerns. As I've suggested all along... pass a bill that makes 'providing minority dissenting opinions' illegal... or 'posting anything that disagrees with the official government position' and the government can censor whatever they want.... But that's going to be a tall order... by design.
Quote:[quote]
And no, posting that you saw a train full of troops is *not* a criminal act, nor is posting that the carrier John Stennis is in port. So your broad stroke effort does *not* deal with the issue at hand.
In a time of war, assuming it poses the immediate threat that has been clearly mentioned.... yes it (generally) is. That (time of war) was the context YOU gave. We are of course speaking broadly. MOST things like troop movements these days are easily followed by satellites. I am presuming you mean in the historical, 'secretive' sense. John Stennis in port is another thing that in modern times wouldn't actually be much of a disclosure.
Again, the declaration of a state of emergency (pandemic, war) changes the powers of the government to regulate speech. Of course not ALL mentions of troop movements would be illegal... and by illegal we really mean, subject to censor... the 'crime' if any would depend on lots of other facts not in evidence.... like 'my Johnny is home' probably doesn't divulge any dangerous information... but obviously disclosing President Biden's plans to visit a war zone WOULD be in almost any situation... and saying 'my son's seal team getting ready to take it to Putin this weekend' absolutely would be.
Quote:You answered my set (not one, a set) of hypos by launching into some wild discourse on conspiracy theories.
I responded directly to your hypothetical. Stop trying to spin it. The 'set' you gave mentioned no specifics was not specific to my comments.
As to 'illegal' let me be clear... because you often get lost in such weeds.... It is my understanding that numerous things can be illegal and have little to no penalty other than a correction... as in someone writes 'I'm going to kick your ass' and the cops determine that the person didn't mean that literally so no action is taken, but the post is probably still censored because it is a threat.
As to conspiracy theories...
I can't think of much speech that isn't already illegal (or couldn't easily be determined to be so) because it poses a credible, imminent threat... I even used the 'beat you WITH a poker' obvious threat which is illegal... and of course, libelous comments are illegal... and child porn... etc... or disclosure of national secrets, especially during war time... all things that have been otherwise discussed...
So I used 'conspiracy theories' as a means of broadly capturing something that does not meet those already discussed criteria. Things like 'Trump is calling for a blood bath' or how someone's speech (or even mere presence) somehow 'brings violence' on someone... or other such recent attempts to improperly 'characterize' free speech as meeting those 'illegal' criteria so that they can be censored.
Quote:The issue presented by her question that included “hamstring” *isnt* non-harmful (for the most part) conspiracy theories which your multi paragraphs focused on —. Instead the question *specifically* asked about items of a clear, present, and impactful danger. My hypos tried to demonstrate that. But undeterred you decided to answer in a manner that suited you generally, and not to either the context I tried to emphasize for you, nor to the context that Brown asked.
Post 3715... here is what you wrote...
Quote:In that manner, the government should not be able to regulate speech about troop movements during time of war, either by the media or by talk amongst private individuals?
That is what your black and white statement yields Ham. And that is precisely the limit that Brown was invoking. That is, what happens at the extreme edge.
Two complete paragraphs directly relating to me. I responded to that.... because you addressed that one specifically to me.... in response to something I said.
Yes, you later added :
Quote:Or in a lesser mode, lets say a Logan Paul video appears in which he urges people to get into a closet, close the door, and mix a pound of bleach with a quart of ammonia in that enclosed space. Or a the same personality does a video where he 'double dares' people to quaff 24 oz of antifreeze.
Should the government have the ability to step in and urge (in the manner that the lawsuit is about) the popular video carriers to ixnay those videos?
Or say that a highly followed person tells the public to drink or inject bleach to ward off a viral infection in a thread on X. Should the government have the ability to step in and urge (again in the manner that the lawsuit is about) X to ixnay that thread, or remove it entirely?
Let's start with this... You noted these were lesser modes... so less important than the one addressed to me and that I responded to.
Now to the point... The government can URGE anything it wants. What it can't to is demand, pressure or compel anything it wants. The entire phrase 'step in and urge' is an oxymoron. They can step in, or they can urge. They can't do both.
As to these specifics, which to me I generally intended to capture by 'conspiracy theories' since most videos urging people to inject bleach also include some rant about 'why the government (or big pharma) doesn't want you knowing this'.... so pass a law.
But you're ignoring the over-arching point I made... Very clearly and very simply.
There should NEVER be a time or conditions under which the court should NOT be hamstrung by the constitution in trying to remove enumerated rights.
The conditions and examples you put forth don't change that premise. You must DEMONSTRATE that there is a real, credible and imminent threat.... and that is not an easy thing to do, nor should it be.
I don't know how much more clear or simply I can state that.
Quote:You simply fixate on the verb ‘hamstring’ and studiously avoid the context of the question, and thus the question itself. Dodge it in the same general manner that the solicitor general of LA evaded at least three times in hearing.
Again... there is absolutely NO context where the Constitution should make it easy/NOT hamstring the government from removing someone's rights.... and I answered the question numerous times. The court should not do for the legislature what the legislature is called to do for itself.
If you want to make those things illegal then pass laws that make them illegal... and have them meet Constitutional muster... which generally means that the state has a compelling interest in this issue and that this is the 'least restrictive' means of accomplishing the goal.
Hint... being hamstrung just means its not easy... it's made more difficult. It doesn't mean 'prevented'. If she had meant 'prevented' she would have used that word, or one with a similar definition.
Now... what's REALLY funny to me is that you are HAPPY and even ARGUMENTATIVE in support of the prospect of letting politicians get away with crimes because we can't prove 'intent'... but that doesn't even occur to you when it comes to free speech and the populace?? I can't think of a more clear example of someone who supports the government over the people.
The 'dares' or whatever you want to call them are no different from some of the games that we played as kids. You held your breath until you passed out... you rolled down the hill in a tire... you shot an arrow into the air and had to be the last one to move.... you 'ate' a spoon full of cinnamon... heck, I made nitro-glycerine... just with a much larger audience. Often no crimes.. just stupid kids.... who sometimes died. Drug dealers though who encourage/pressure you to try their drug?? Crimes.
If you want to charge someone with a crime, then do so. Prove that they KNEW what they were doing was harmful (or illegal) and that they encouraged/pressured/you name it people to do it anyway.... because they wanted to see the carnage.
PROVE 'intent'.
Do that and you can remove the post... NOT because you pressured the host, but because you followed due process of the poster. Don't and you can't... even if you KNOW that what these people did was 'wrong'. Hamstrung.
I don't even think you'd need to pass a new law to do this... If you can prove that someone intended to bring harm someone else by their words and harm actually came to them from someone acting reasonably... that seems obviously actionable.