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.

The same way stabbing people with pointy flags was cover for weapons on
Jan 6.

But should it be illegal? That's a trickier question. I think there
should be stricter limitations on *conduct*, upon which some limitations
already exist. Riot gear? Lots of guns? Maybe that should be limited.
Suspiciously pointy flagpoles? Yeah, not good. Maybe if protesters feel
they have to wear riot gear, or bring sharp objects, they are not only
expecting a failure of the peace by their opponents, but not presenting
any commitment to peaceful behavior themselves.

If folks bring guns and carry them openly, while they may be
demonstrating their 2nd amendment rights, to expect me to believe that it
is their sole intent is beyond the pale.

These are examples of non-peaceful gatherings that, in numbers or
otherwise, become dire threat.

>> 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
>
If they visibly have duct tape, chloroform, and their erect penises
hanging out? Fuck yeah. (Let's forget for the moment that there are laws
against indecent exposure. That's not the point. The point is that they
are brandishing "weapons.")

>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.
>
I do not think you have overlooked anything. People can be idiots, and
they then fuck around and find out when they are arrested and sentenced
for their unprotected behavior.

Common Carrier is the only thing I can think of that you may have missed.

--
Zag

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