Hello all,

To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
American constitution.

The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.

....But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a
right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.

Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as
defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).

Like here :

https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech

Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"

Or here :

https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech

which starts with "freedom of speech, right"

Or here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of
speech right"

tl;dr:
Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right*
described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.

Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those
people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have
the law on their side.

I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that
regard.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2023-12-11 10:24, R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
> American constitution.

Did they use Windows to write the constitution?

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Carlos,

> Did they use Windows to write the constitution?

No, they probably used a goose-feather pen. But they likely used windows to
let the light in so they could see where the ink well was and what they
wrote.

.... did I forget too start the subject wit "OT" ? No, it looks like I did.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 2023-12-11 12:38, R.Wieser wrote:
> Carlos,
>
>> Did they use Windows to write the constitution?
>
> No, they probably used a goose-feather pen. But they likely used windows to
> let the light in so they could see where the ink well was and what they
> wrote.
>
> ... did I forget too start the subject wit "OT" ? No, it looks like I did.

So what? It is not even related distantly to the themes of this
international area. It is not even my constitution.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote
| | To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
| described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
| American constitution.
|

First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
up with the idea of hate speech.

I don't know what retaliation means in that respect. We
used the military to murder students at Kent State in '75.
But some of them were dirty hippies. You got a problem with
that?

Is Elise Stefanik legally oppressing speech if she attacks
college administrations that don't actively push Zionism while
my tax dollars fund the Israeli war machine? I don't understand
how she got the right to silence people.

A Zionist donor/activist was threatening
to withold 1/2 billion dollar donation from UPenn unless they
paid lip service to Zionism, fired their president, and vowed
to oppress free speech among students. One thing you need
to understand about the US: Dollars have more rights than
anyone. Our class system is based mainly on money and power,
both of which are more flexible than in Europe. And as much
as we brag about our civilized system, democracy is always
a sunny day philosophy.

US law was originally founded on revolutionary efforts
against oppression by Britain. We were officially British subjects.
American land was officially owned by the crown. People who
had established their own lands without help from the crown
were being exploited and pushed into the role of peasants with
limited rights. So it wasn't just a project of utopian idealism.
It was a struggle against a British ruling class who
saw no limit in how much they could milk out of those dumbass
barbarians living in North America. But those barbarians were
so far away that they began to think of themselves as independent
from the crown. (I once had an English girlfriend whose mother
explained to me that she was trying to forgive us Americans for
breaking with Britain! What I know as ancient history was, to her,
a recent wound to the glorious crown which might have otherwise
ruled the world.)

The result was laws based partly on resistance. It's been a
work in progress. For example, the 2nd amendment states the right
to bear arms. The intention of that was to say that British authorities
could not ban local militias in the 18th century. We would defend
ourselves. That law is now often interpreted to mean that I can
buy machine guns and cannons in case out-of-towners trespass
on my property.

I've read that the guarantee of the right to "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness" was originally life, liberty and property.
But property owners at the time were basically the ruling class;
So it was changed. We couldn't let just anyone own property,
just as the Brits couldn't let just anyone own property in the
colonies.

Thus, even our
proclamation of independence from the crown was murky and
ambivalent. It was a bunch of clever, idealistic Deists who had
known only long-distance monarchy, declaring democracy. It
was inspired, but it was also a bit like spoiled, rich Gen-Zers
declaring that everyone has a right to a minimum income, and
that all land must be returned to the indigenous peoples -- except
for their family vacation home in the Hamptons and their ski
lodge in Aspen.

Joe McCarthy could claim that he was defending against threats
to the country in calling people commies. What is Elise Stefanik
protecting other than a powerful Zionist lobby? I don't know. I
guess she derives her authority from claims of hate speech: Any
questioning of Israel's bombardment of Gaza is hate speech. I just
have to assume that if she had no basis then college presidents
wouldn't let her get away with it.

The US Congress recently passed a resolution
declaring that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism! It's part of an effort
to classify any sympathy for Arabs as hatred of Jews. About 90
reps refused to vote. Only 12 out of 435 voted against the
resolution. We have a foreign country controlling our Congress.

There was an interesting case back when the US attacked
Iraq. A journalist working for National Geographic went in and did
a sympathetic interview with an Iraqi general, if I remember
correctly. The nation was stunned. A reporter had committed
the treason of humanizing an enemy. It took me several days
to find out what had happened. The reporter was fired from NG.
TV news announced only that he had been fired for his unspeakable
act. Had he fucked his cat? I couldn't find any report about what
he'd done. No one could bring themselves to even speak of the
possibility of humanizing an enemy. We might as well be
ambiguous about Satan!

So, yes, we have freedom of speech. We especially have freedom
of the press. But that doesn't nullify mainstream consensus reality.
Do you want to say something transphobic, for example? We'll come
over there, climb right over those dikes, and drag your ass to jail.
Trans people have rights! Come to think of it, you exhibit every
indication of being a witch as well as a hater of Taylor Swift. What
say thee in defense?!

Newyana2,

> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
> freedom of speech, press, or assembly.

Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother you if you do
speak your mind.

> The popular interpretation is that you can say what
> you like

Thats why I posted my question : that "popular interpretation" doesn't seem
to be based on either the amendments or the law.

To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced
"the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop
anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.

I'd just like to know if there is /anything anywhere/ supporting that.

> I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.

Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
them upto picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.

And I'm not here to discuss politics. If I wanted that I would have posted
my question in a politics related newsgroup. I would be pretty-much
guaranteed a conflict. :-\

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:43:03 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced
>"the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop
>anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.

The "popular interpretation" is based on the general ignorance of the
population.

The web site X (formerly Twitter) is experiencing the consequences of
that "freedom of speech" as advertisers are leaving. Why? Because one
of the "freedoms of speech" is to *disassociate* from those who are
doing what you do NOT want. Musk sputters and shouts but you see he
does NOT try to sue the advertisers who left--because he KNOWS the
companies have that right. But he DOES try to foist onto the
(ignorant) general public HIS OPINION they (the advertisers who quit)
are doing the "wrong thing" (whatever THAT is) and should be punished
(think Bud Light in the US).

On 12/11/2023 8:43 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Newyana2,
>
>> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
>> freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
>
> Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother you if you do
> speak your mind.
>
>> The popular interpretation is that you can say what
>> you like
>
> Thats why I posted my question : that "popular interpretation" doesn't seem
> to be based on either the amendments or the law.
>
> To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced
> "the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop
> anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.
>
> I'd just like to know if there is /anything anywhere/ supporting that.
>
>> I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
>
> Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
> them upto picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
> into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
>
>
> And I'm not here to discuss politics. If I wanted that I would have posted
> my question in a politics related newsgroup. I would be pretty-much
> guaranteed a conflict. :-\
Part of the problem is that many, many people confuse the right for one
to believe and opine what they think with the right to force another to
listen to such incantations.
--
Jeff Barnett

jerryab,

>> To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have
>> replaced "the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is
>> allowed to stop anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever
>> he likes to do it.
>
> The "popular interpretation" is based on the general ignorance of
> the population.

From what I know I agree with you.

The thing is that I do not know American Law inside-out (far from it
actually), so it just could be that one supporting that "popular
interpretation" actually exist. Hence my question if anyone is aware of
such a law.

And ignorance ? I doubt it. /Willfull/ ignorance perhaps. Although the
phrase "do not attribute to malice what is easily explained by stupidity" is
often used, most people are unaware of the second line, which says "do not
easily attribute to stupidity that what benefits the stupid".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

| > I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
| | Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
| them upto picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
| into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
|

That has nothing to do with law. We have laws against
murder, discrimination, slander, etc. The law says you
have freedom of speech. Others are also free to tell you
you're wrong. JK Rowling is free to proclaim there are two
sexes, but she may very well lose fans and risk personal
harm from people who disagree. Whether they have that
right (you call that retailation?) depends on whether they
do it legally. It's legal to boycott her books. Presumably
it's legal to call her transphobic or whatever. (As a
Congresswoman did recently in denigrating a female swimmer
testifying against allowing male swimmers to take over
the sport.) But obviously it's not legal to break the lae.

So, no, I really don't know what you mean by retaliation.
You seem to have some sort of agenda here that you're
refusing to be clear and honest about. Why not just make
whatever point it is that you want to make?

Jeff,

> Part of the problem is that many, many people confuse the right for one to
> believe and opine what they think with the right to force another to
> listen to such incantations.

Thats the thing I don't get and wanted to find the answer to : somehow those
"many people" have warped that amendment of free speech *towards the
gouverment* into one that goes toward *everyone*.

How ? How did that happen ? Where is the law updating that "free speech"
amendment ?

To be honest, I don't think that that law exists. Yet, lots of people throw
that "free speech" amendment around as, as you said it, "the right to force
another to listen" (and beyond).

Are they all stupid ? I can't believe that. But what then ? Self delusion
? Malicious intent ? Something else ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
>described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
>American constitution.
>
>The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
>something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
>hear.
>
>...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a
>right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
>
>
>Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as
>defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
>
>Like here :
>
>https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
>
>Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"
>
>Or here :
>
>https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
>
>which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
>
>Or here :
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
>
>where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of
>speech right"
>
>
>tl;dr:
>Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right*
>described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.
>
>
>Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those
>people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have
>the law on their side.
>
>I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that
>regard.
>
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction of
protected speech. Political speech has an especially high bar as far as
protection goes.

You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if the
platform decides to shut down your speech.

Deplatforming is completely legal.

This is why moving speech to private platforms is a desperate problem. If
the public town square isn't public property administered by the
government where people can assemble and prosyletize, and is instead a
private town square? Well... corporate governance, possibly ONE person,
can do anything they want with that. They can silence whomever they care
to.

Otherwise, on public spaces, you have the right to say what you like so
long as it is "protected speech" (the yelling "fire" exceptions, look it
up), you have the right to publish what you like, and you have the right
to assemble ANY number of people because the Constitution doesn't
numerically limit the right to peaceably assemble.

Personally, I think if you drop a hundred thousand people open carrying
assault weapons on Washington, it is no longer a peaceable assembly, but
that hasn't been ruled yet and likely never will. IMO, it's mass assault
with a deadly weapon.

HTH.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

As mentioned above, it is the First Amendment to the US constitution and
known legally as the "free speech clause," to aid Googling.

The First Amendment also contains the "non-establishment clause" which
prevents the government from instituting an official religion of the
state. It is actually the first sentence of the amendment, so when
someone mentions "separation of Church and state," you can imagine how
important that was to the Founders.

The expansion of separation of church and state to mean that the state
cannot express religious iconography, however, is up to common law and
court rulings. It isn't expressly mentioned.

Personally, I think so long as there is plurality in the expression of
religious displays, it should be perfectly fine for the government to put
up creches and menorahs and diwali displays. But, IMHO, you can't display
the Ten Commandments in front of a court house (it has been tried).

Nothing should give a specific religion government imprimatur, explicit
or implied.

(Probably more than you wanted)

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:02:39 +0100, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2023-12-11 12:38, R.Wieser wrote:
>> Carlos,
>>
>>> Did they use Windows to write the constitution?
>>
>> No, they probably used a goose-feather pen. But they likely used windows to
>> let the light in so they could see where the ink well was and what they
>> wrote.
>>
>> ... did I forget too start the subject wit "OT" ? No, it looks like I did.
>
>So what? It is not even related distantly to the themes of this
>international area. It is not even my constitution.

American law is of interest to any number of people, internationally,
even if they live in Portugal. It is important if they want to travel,
and you'd better believe that EU rulings on the Internet affect Americans
in return, and vice versa.

WTH man? Grumbling about American hegemony to add to the off-topic with
extra off-topic of the OP is dumb.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Newyana2,

> | Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
> | them upto picking them up just picking them off the street
> | throwing them into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
>
> That has nothing to do with law.

I take it that you've already forgotten about all those five-eyes,
three-letter companies which claim rights that are often diametrically
opposed to the American law, and that there are politicians who ignore it,
just because they can ?

Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not
permit to exist, yet it stil does.

Do me a favour, and do not talk about "has nothing to do with the law".
There is quite a lot that has nothing to do with it, but nonetheless even
the highest regions of the American gouverment allow it to exist.

> The law says you have freedom of speech

Pardon me, but thats the very thing I asked to be supported (by mentioning
the law saing so), but here you state it as a fact without bothering doing
so. That doesn't work for me I'm afraid.

> You seem to have some sort of agenda here that you're
> refusing to be clear and honest about.

Why do you think that I must have an agenda ? Because you do understand
where my question comes from ?

> Why not just make whatever point it is that you want to make?

I am not here to make a point.

I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who demand
freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to stand on. As I
mentioned in my initial post, I don't think so. But as I'm not all-knowing
I'm trying to see if someone knows the answer to a very simple question (as
in the subject line).

regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
> American constitution.
>
> The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
> something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
> hear.
>
> ...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a
> right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
>
>
> Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as
> defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
>
> Like here :
>
> https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
>
> Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"
>
> Or here :
>
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
>
> which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
>
> Or here :
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
>
> where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of
> speech right"
>
>
> tl;dr:
> Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right*
> described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.
>
>
> Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those
> people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have
> the law on their side.
>
> I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that
> regard.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
American Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Those were Enlightenment ideas; European mostly, France being the
leading light.
The Declaration of Independence wasn't aimed solely at Britain; it was
aimed at the ancien régime, societies highly class-bound where wealth
and power were in the hands of few; no unions, no political platform to
promote the working classes or even the middle classes. Where aristos
could drive carriages recklessly down the streets, knock over labourers
and get away with it.
That's the melting pot for "freedom of speech". It's also the melting
pot for "habeas corpus". And it's the foundation of the American
colonies' revolt against British imperialism. It preceded the French
revolution by more than a decade. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Did
anyone add some subclause saying, ah but you're not to "incite racial
hatred"? No. Those are subsequent tinkerings with the law, under
different world conditions.
I wonder if someone at the Boston Tea-party stood up and said "Let's
have no speaking hatred of the British here". I doubt it; political
action arises from freedom of opinion and speech".
Ed

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
>described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
>American constitution.
>
>The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
>something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
>hear.
>
>...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a
>right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
>
>
>Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as
>defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
>
>Like here :
>
>https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
>
>Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"
>
>Or here :
>
>https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
>
>which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
>
>Or here :
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
>
>where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of
>speech right"
>
>
>tl;dr:
>Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right*
>described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.
>
>
>Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those
>people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have
>the law on their side.
>
>I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that
>regard.
>

Read, also, this excellent article regarding the regulation of social
media as "common carriers" in the US:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-media-companies-and-common-carrier-status-a-primer/

For instance, FedEx is a common carrier (CC) and cannot place limitations
on what they ship because "it's gay" or whatever. Telephony is a CC as
well. Since Internet law is an extension of telephony law - which is
itself an extension of telegraph law - common carrier content agnosticism
is enforcable in all previous forms of communication, and it could be
required of new forms such as the Internet and beyond. There's no reason
it can't apply to the Internet and, by extension, platforms that operate
on the Internet. They don't pay for their own network, after all. It
isn't Usenet.

THEN, there'd be a legal leg to stand on, as it would be legally
protected free speech and not just the free speech ideal that was in
force. This is what the Net Neutrality debate is about. There are laws,
established by congress, that encourage free speech. That *is* allowed.

But we have significant forces in this country that want to privatize our
communications infrastructure, and don't like the idea of Net Neutrality
because the other "team" supports it, so it is a hard thing to
accomplish. Since much of our Internet infrastructure was built with
public funding, it's really just another instance of rail barons. Control
the on-ramps and some of the backbone and you control the whole thing.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 19:23:21 +0000, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk>
wrote:

>Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>American Declaration of Independence, 1776.
>
>Those were Enlightenment ideas; European mostly, France being the
>leading light.
>
That is a statement of ideals and principles, not law.

They are also so vague as to be meaningless, unfortunately.

Right to Life? I can use that right to life to justify my right to free
food, as starvation directly affects my health, well-being, and
ulitmately my ability to live. Since only in France is there an ideal of
a right to Property, which is not included in the Declaration, there is
no rights versus rights conflict.

Right to the Pursuit of Happiness? If I enjoy screwing little boys, I can
pursue my happiness under those ideals. It is my "right?" Don't think so.
But technically it doesn't conflict with those little boys' rights to
life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if I can demonstrate consent
and enjoyment on their part. There is nothing regarding age of consent in
the enforcement of liberty.

So thank goodness it isn't law; that sort of canonical thinking is the
basis for misinformation about what "free speech" we're entitled to.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not
>permit to exist, yet it stil does.

They get around that because it's technically not on American soil. So
it, for some reason, isn't America, not subject to American law, and only
violates the ideals, not the law.

That's why it's in Cuba.

Go figure. Every system of laws can be gamed. That's why we have reforms.
Eventually it starts to look like Asimov's three laws of robotics.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Zaghadka,

>> I'm trying to figure out if all those people who demand "freedom
>> of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have the law on their
>> side.
....
> They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
> of protected speech.

I know that, you know that. The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth)
Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?"
question.

But I take it thats a round-about way of saying that you are not aware of
any law updating that "free speech" amendment.

> You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
> the platform decides to shut down your speech.
>
> Deplatforming is completely legal.

Yep. But why hide what happens behind a word like that ? The people *get
kicked out* - often even without knowing why.

> This is why moving speech to private platforms is a desperate
> problem.

Indeed.

> Well... corporate governance, possibly ONE person,can do anything
> they want with that. They can silence whomever they care to.

In my country (The Netherlands) some companies have been tagged as
"utilities" (gas, water, light), and they have to come up with damn good
reasons (that wil stand in a court of law) to disconnect customers - and
proof that they tried to create a good-faith solution for a customers who
have money problems.

> Otherwise, on public spaces, you have the right to say what you like
> so long as it is "protected speech"

Ehhh... Try to set up a couple of Killo-watt speakers on a sidwalk, aim them
ad a random home and see how fast you will be "kicked out" (into jail). :-)

> (the yelling "fire" exceptions, look it up),

Don't need to, I now. But, yeling "fire" "in" the public space of a(n open)
towns center most likely won't be punished. Why ? There is no expectation
of panic. Something which /does/ exist in a movie theater (which is often
used as a "where not to do it" example)

> you have the right to publish what you like,

Nope. Slander isn't permitted. Handing out pornographic images isn't
either. Lots of things are prohibited in/on public spaces. Heck, you can't
even drop your pants and take a leak against a tree there, let alone a
number 2 in the center of a square. :-)

> and you have the right to assemble ANY number of people because
> the Constitution doesn't numerically limit the right to peaceably
> assemble.

Nope, not even that. I'm pretty sure that, even at your side of the pond,
laws exist which limit that, to make sure no dangerous situation (for
example, due to overcrowding) will occur.

> Personally, I think if you drop a hundred thousand people open
> carrying assault weapons on Washington, it is no longer a peaceable
> assembly, but> that hasn't been ruled yet and likely never will.

It is. But just as when a lot of people "peaceably assemble" there is just
a simple spark needed to create chaos.

> IMO, it's mass assault with a deadly weapon.

Ah. So if large groups of guys come together you automatically have a rape
party ? :-p

But I get what you're trying to tell. There is no reason to take weapons
into a peacefull gathering. Doing so is suspect.

{snip from other post]

> (Probably more than you wanted)

I knew of most, if not of all of it. My question was just to make certain I
did not overlook something somewhere.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
> No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
> spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Than dan(i) has never met a nerd or an introvert.

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not
> >permit to exist, yet it stil does.
>
> They get around that because it's technically not on American soil. So
> it, for some reason, isn't America, not subject to American law, and only
> violates the ideals, not the law.
>
> That's why it's in Cuba.
>
> Go figure. Every system of laws can be gamed. That's why we have reforms.
> Eventually it starts to look like Asimov's three laws of robotics.

<Even more OT>

Indeed, go figure: American law does not apply in Cuba, but for some
strange reason it *does* apply in The Hague (i.e. the law colloquially
known as the The Hague Invasion Act).

But hey, if Boris can do it, why can't the Americans!?

</Even more OT>

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 21:36:31 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Zaghadka,
>
>>> I'm trying to figure out if all those people who demand "freedom
>>> of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have the law on their
>>> side.
>...
>> They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
>> of protected speech.
>
>I know that, you know that.

Why ask then? No, your initial question implies that you didn't know. I
am saying that the First Amendment is (very nearly) the only law that
establishes a right of free speech in US law, though it is often mirrored
and further regulated at the state level.

So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.
You sound like the lawyer with the burning cigarette on Saturday Night
Live.

>>The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth)
>Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?"
>question.
>
I wasn't trying to talk down to you. You asked. I gave a complete answer.
This is my way of taking your question seriously. Context matters.

TL;DR? No. You didn't miss anything. Unlimited freedom proponents do not
have a legal leg to stand on. They also, IMHO, have no concept of a
functional and mutually beneficial society.

There is no law other than Common Carrier that exists in support of free
speech in the way it's being bandied about by people who "feel" their
rights are being violated.

The prevalence of robocallers in my country demonstrates the power of
common carrier laws, however. The phone companies cannot cut such things
off, as offensive and harassing as they are. I have gotten regular calls
(for over a year) from a scammer claiming me as "a respondent in a legal
matter," with all the threat that entails, and no complaint I've made to
the phone company or the FCC has made them stop. All I could do was block
their number, which they thankfully don't scramble. I even called the
police to get advice on other action I could take. There was no advice.

(Yes, I looked into it and the call is an illegitimate scam. I used to
work IT at a law firm. I had ways to research it.)

Common Carrier - the idea of agnostic transmission of information - is an
impactful law. It just doesn't apply to the Internet, for now. Lots of
legal groups are arguing for it.

So if you're talking about free speech on the Internet, read the article
I posted. It's the only thing you may have overlooked.

>> You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
>> the platform decides to shut down your speech.
>>
>> Deplatforming is completely legal.
>
>Yep. But why hide what happens behind a word like that ? The people *get
>kicked out* - often even without knowing why.
>
For the sphere of public discourse. What people *can* do is spur a mass
exodus from a platform for being inherently unfair and damaging to its
own users. Obfuscation of that harm is necessary for PR and optics
management.

Privatization has its benefits, one of which is being able to opt out of
your relationship with the private entity. Clearly, you cannot do so with
your government without renouncing your citizenship (and probably fleeing
the country, and even then... Putin).

>In my country (The Netherlands) some companies have been tagged as
>"utilities" (gas, water, light), and they have to come up with damn good
>reasons (that wil stand in a court of law) to disconnect customers - and
>proof that they tried to create a good-faith solution for a customers who
>have money problems.
>
Same here in the US. Providers cannot just shut utilities down without
cause and meeting regulatory requirements. I also think the Internet
should be considered a utility under law.

Common Carrier has a similar, if functionally different, intent. Thus
phone service is excluded from such laws, even if you then can't call
911.

>> Otherwise, on public spaces, you have the right to say what you like
>> so long as it is "protected speech"
>
>Ehhh... Try to set up a couple of Killo-watt speakers on a sidwalk, aim them
>ad a random home and see how fast you will be "kicked out" (into jail). :-)

Aw c'mon. That's a straw man. Doing that is disturbing the peace, plain
and simple. Not through one's speech, but through the intolerable,
disruptive noise. Being jailed for that has *nothing* to do with free
speech.

>> (the yelling "fire" exceptions, look it up),
>
>Don't need to, I now. But, yeling "fire" "in" the public space of a(n open)
>towns center most likely won't be punished. Why ? There is no expectation
>of panic. Something which /does/ exist in a movie theater (which is often
>used as a "where not to do it" example)
>
It was just a quick introduction to protected vs. unprotected speech. A
shortcut, not an absolute statement of fact. The idea that free speech is
not carte blanche in light of other's rights.

This is another concept that escapes such free speech fanatics, even when
their right to it *does* apply, they don't understand that even that can
be nullified, as self-expression is pretty low on the totem pole.

>> you have the right to publish what you like,
>
>Nope. Slander isn't permitted. Handing out pornographic images isn't
>either. Lots of things are prohibited in/on public spaces. Heck, you can't
>even drop your pants and take a leak against a tree there, let alone a
>number 2 in the center of a square. :-)
>
I had already introduced the concept of protected speech. Free speech is
limited by concepts of illegal speech and harassment, as I have said and
implied. You have defined some of them. Thank you.

This is my perceived weakness of in-line commentary: a focus on sentences
and fragments rather than the whole. You aren't responding to my actual
post.

I try to read my reply in whole before I post in-line. It's a good
practice, but I get sloppy sometimes too.

>> and you have the right to assemble ANY number of people because
>> the Constitution doesn't numerically limit the right to peaceably
>> assemble.
>
>Nope, not even that. I'm pretty sure that, even at your side of the pond,
>laws exist which limit that, to make sure no dangerous situation (for
>example, due to overcrowding) will occur.
>
Any *number*, not any circumstance.

But since you mention it, if they're exceeding the maximum capacity of a
building or blocking a road so ambulances can't pass? It's illegal
because it violates the peace through dire harm to public safety. It is
not illegal because they have no right to assemble. It's just that the
right to basic physical safety trumps that right in a rights vs. rights
conflict.

Things you probably already know: It's the only way a right can be
nullified through US law -- another right that takes precedence over it
as adjudicated by a court. Rights are otherwise absolute.

If you can't get a permit, however? Assembling without government
sanction? Declaring an assembly unsafe when it is a live issue? Well,
that's been declared unconstitutional in some cases because permitting
and public safety were being used by some governments to obstruct
peoples' right to free assembly. It was also used as a reason to beat the
shit out of people, which is naturally totally illegal. See Selma.

Governments sure do try to push back against people's rights. That's
certain.

But there is no _numerical_ limit. It was meant to be a narrow point as a
premise to further arguments.

>> Personally, I think if you drop a hundred thousand people open
>> carrying assault weapons on Washington, it is no longer a peaceable
>> assembly, but> that hasn't been ruled yet and likely never will.
>
>It is. But just as when a lot of people "peaceably assemble" there is just
>a simple spark needed to create chaos.
>
I have argued this as well. I think mass demonstrations above a certain
number deserve special consideration. I have repeatedly told my
left-leaning friends that it is in no way "peaceful" to "assemble" a mob
to shout at people, especially if those people are a smaller group of
counterdemonstrators or they are engaging as counterdemonstrators to a
smaller demonstration. There is an implicit threat of violence there.
There is intimidation there. There is assault.

When Antifa showed up to Charlottesville in (putatively defensive) riot
gear and held signs that were totally intended to be forcibly used as
plows (justified by a "free speech" message upon them), this is exactly
the apparent non-peaceful assembly I'm talking about. That they were so
few in number was pure idiocy, if not suicidal. But it was, to my
consternation, considered totally legal. Or at least there was legal
cover as long as there was a message written on their obvious weapons.
The fact that their shields and plows merely resembled signs was enough
to give some limited legal cover.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
> To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
> American constitution.
>
> The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
> something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
> hear.

This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Zaghadka,

> Read, also, this excellent article regarding the regulation of
> social media as "common carriers" in the US:
>
> https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-media-companies-and-common-carrier-status-a-primer/

Thank you, but currently I just want to make sure that the "freedom of
speech" demands I hear so many throw around do actually have a basis in
American law.

Maybe after I've made (reasonably) sure I'll take a peek.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Zaghadka,

>>Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does
>> not permit to exist, yet it stil does.
>
> They get around that because it's technically not on American soil.

I know.

But stil Americans run the show there, from top to bottom. Americans
(soldiers) which /should/ be bound by American law, but behave as if they
aren't. When they return to American soil they should be arrested for the
atrocities they have performed while being "abroad" (performing their
"duties"). Yet none of that happens.

But I'm not here to talk politics. I just tried to convey that "has nothing
to do with the law" has got little meaning to the gouverment. They have
their ways to skirt around it. With impunity.

> Go figure. Every system of laws can be gamed.

Yep. And it doesn't help when the gouverment is the one blatantly showing
that it is doing it themselves. Who knows, maye that is what got the "Free
speech" demanders started ...

> Eventually it starts to look like Asimov's three laws of robotics.

:-) I enjoyed reading them. And yes, especially the ones where those three
laws where gamed to get a robot to commit murder.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser