this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
51 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22059 readers
59 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This has nothing to do with "free speech" and people need to stop misusing that concept. Free speech only protects you from the government impairing your speech, not other people or even businesses.
For example, If a mall decided to say "you're not allowed to say bad things about China on our property" they could eject you from their property if you did say something bad about China. You don't have the right to free speech on their property. Just like websites can ban you from saying specific things on their sites as well.
This is about threatening other people, you're not allowed to do that for any reason, speech or otherwise. That's why this asshat's conviction is for cyberstalking and threat charges.
You're wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with 1a. The legal right to free speech has nothing to do with other individuals, or other governments.
They aren't exercising their right to free speech unless the US government would like them not to say it but is restricted from preventing them.
If the government doesn't care, it's just called talking.
If I have a gun but the government doesn't care, am I not exercising my 2a rights?
The government can't restrict your right to free speech until you exercise it. They didn't, which is why this isn't a 1a case, but that doesn't mean they weren't exercising their rights.
No, you are not.
You have a right to not be unduly burdened by the government in owning or procuring a gun.
It does not follow that because the government is not allowed to arbitrarily restrict your ability to own a gun, you therefor have a “right to own a gun”. For example, if you do not own a gun, and everyone who does own a gun doesn’t want to give/sell you a gun, your 2a rights were not violated.
….....................................
Putting up a lost cat flyer, and having some random person yell at you for it is not exercising the “right to free speech” (for either party).
You have a right to not be unduly burdened by the government in speech/expression.
It does not follow that because the government is not allowed to arbitrarily restrict your speech/expression, you therefor have a right to speech/expression in all contexts. For example, if you want to go on a rant about your personal beliefs, the government unduly burdened you. However this will not stop the owner of the grocery store from calling the cops to have you trespassed for bothering all of the customers.
First, my right and my ability to exercise it are two different things. My being too poor also doesn't impinge on my right to own a gun, but it certainly affects my ability to do so. Moreover, you are focusing on the example and not the law itself. I can as easily exercise my right to bear arms by finding a big stick or a suitable rock. Further, exercising my right doesn't require the government to restrict it in order for it to exist. And, of course, violation of my rights would generally require the government to be involved.
As far as speech is concerned, yes, I'm exercising my right to free speech if I say anything in a public space, including asking you if you've seen my lost cat. It likely wasn't going to be infringed in that particular example. This still doesn't allow me to go on private property and ask people about my cat.
Rights don't have to be at threat to be rights. A right is "something that one may properly claim as due." Note that there is nothing there which requires it to be threatened.
The fact of owning a gun isn't a 2nd amendment issue as your comment would imply... The government coming to take that gun in some way? Second amendment issue. Government tries to impede your purchase of that gun? 2nd amendment issue.
Whether or not the Chinese student didn't like what she was saying has nothing to do with it being about or not being about freedom of speech.
So you're proposing that bearing arms, the right guaranteed by the second amendment is not exercising of said right unless the government tries to stop you? So rights are like Schrodinger's laws, where they only exist when we try to violate them?
Correct, if the government would have let you have and use the gun anyway, you are not exercising your 2a right.
Exercise requires pushing limits. You aren't exercising by lifting your spoon to your mouth.
One of the definition of exercise is "the active use or application of something." How is carrying a weapon not an application of second amendment rights? How is putting posters in a public space not an application of first amendment rights?
This is an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Not every thing covered by a right is exercising that right, Intention and circumstances matter.