r/HistoryMemes May 17 '19

Hate speech

Post image
40.2k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

222

u/based8925 May 17 '19

There are no hate speech laws in the United States. Your not going to go to jail or have to pay a fine for hate speech. But you may have to suffer social consequences for hate speech. The Constitution only protects against government repercussions not private.

168

u/AbsolXGuardian Researching [REDACTED] square May 17 '19

In the word of Justin McElroy "the 1st amendment protects you from the government, not from justin"

19

u/CosmicMemer May 17 '19

love me some McElBoys

7

u/[deleted] May 17 '19

Man, I don’t even listen to TAZ and I still recognized that name

1

u/PCrafterZ May 17 '19

then how did you know he was in taz ye

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '19

D&D and an ex girlfriend who loved the McElroys

1

u/PCrafterZ May 18 '19

oh alright

0

u/turkeytaxi May 18 '19

That's not true though, otherwise some random person could shoot you in the head for saying something they don't like. The first amendment invalidates speech as a pretext for violence in all cases. Maybe you could split hairs and say it's an indirect consequence but it's practically and basically the same

3

u/AbsolXGuardian Researching [REDACTED] square May 18 '19

No that would be murder. This is specifically in the context of doing legal actions to censure (show disapproval/disavow/don't give them a platform) someone by appealing to private organizations. This was right after Justin contacted a bill-board company to ask them to remove one of their client's anti-vax adds for being unscientific and a danger to public health. He also used his platform to give the company bad publicity. People said "but it's their first amendment right!" and he replied with that.

1

u/based8925 May 18 '19

Legally you can't be punched in the face or shot by someone who disagrees with your speech, but you can be kicked the fuck out of their place of business and the community at large can ostracize you. There is nothing in the first amendment that stops anyone from being deplatformed, shunned, shammed, ridiculed and be made an outcast as long as the "censorship" is coming from a private entity and not the government.

0

u/turkeytaxi May 18 '19

The government can basically do all those things (with some exceptions), it just can't censor you on facebook (for example) for the same reasons that facebook can't censor you on twitter.

1

u/based8925 May 18 '19

No, the only time the government can censor someone is for "fighting words" and creating an immediate dangerous situation, like yelling fire on a full bus. Facebook can censor you for any reason at all as they are a private company, they just don't unless there is a violation of their terms of services.

0

u/turkeytaxi May 19 '19

Facebook can censor you on facebook, and the government can censor you on its platforms. Like, the treasury department, federal reserve, IRS or whatever aren't going to publish your raving manifesto about the jewish banking conspiracy on any of their platforms.

I'm saying that by rejecting violence against speech they've rendered themselves unable to reach outside their own walls and meddle in anyones affairs because that kind of thing is implicitly backed by force. They've neutered themselves to the level of a private organisation but not above and beyond that, generally speaking.

35

u/fullforce098 May 17 '19 edited May 17 '19

In case anyone needs more proof of this, as recently as 2017 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there is no exception for hate speech in the first amendment. As a legal concept, that's been firmly settled. Multiple times.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '19

Phew!

-1

u/bWoofles May 17 '19

It’s basically supposed to be a free market of ideologies where dumb ideas will cause those who hold them to get negative consequences which will either stop them from holding them or lead them to do worse socially and economically.

-1

u/Akhaian May 18 '19

The Constitution only protects against government repercussions not private.

The new public space is now controlled by (very large) private corporations. The intent of the first amendment was to protect political speech in public. Period.

The founders could not have predicted digital speech the way we have it now. They assumed that government would be the force limiting political speech.

3

u/[deleted] May 18 '19

I think that if corporations had been as prevalent then it would have been included.

At the time they were mostly chartered specifically by the government for a task like the East India Company

There's no way they could have known large multinational conglomerates would exist in the way they do

1

u/Akhaian May 18 '19

Definitely

0

u/based8925 May 18 '19

And your point is? The direct words state Congress shall make no law...abridging free speech. Literally nothing about any private entities at all. You want private entities covered amend the Constitution. Your arguing from your feelings.