Read on Twitter
Free speech: A thread. There's been a lot of discourse on my TL about censorship and free speech since yesterday, for obvious reasons. First, free speech laws in many places DO NOT protect certain forms of speech. The common example is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (1)
In another example, in Germany, certain symbols and language related to n*zism are not protected. Second, the existing protections are typically that THE STATE will not censor statements made by private citizens, and DO NOT protect citizens from censorship by private citizens.(2)
For example, if I own or edit a newspaper, and someone on staff writes a column that I do not approve of, I am allowed, as a private citizen, to censor that content of another private citizen. In fact, I may have a legal obligation to do so if the column may harm others. (3)
The harm does not have to be necessarily physical. Liable and slander are not typically considered protected speech either, as they can also cause financial damages. So basically, any speech that can be used to promote harmful acts are not necessarily protected speech. (4)
In other words, Trump's free speech rights were not violated, and would not have even necessarily been violated had THE STATE censored him, as it is fairly obvious that he incited a potential act of violence, intentionally or not, which is not protected speech. (5)
There are those among us left-leaning folx that say "we tweet about overthrowing government too, will we be censored?" The answer is obviously, many already have been, at least on social media. Also remember, most of the time censorship comes after the fact. (6)
Larry Flynt was sued by Jerry Falwell, unsuccessfully, AFTER already publishing parody ads about him. Trump's social media accounts were suspended AFTER the events of the 6th. The hypothetical theater patron would be punished AFTER the stampede in the burning theater. (7)
In cases where the state has tried to curtail speech, the US also has established precedents in the courts that are very hands off, even towards hate speech. National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie being a prominent example.(8)
I say this not to defend the fash, but that in a state that functions under the (supposed) rule of law, legal precedents, even ones that defended horrible people, can be used to defend those we agree with from state power. However that brings up the point many are also making.(9)
