RE: Parler

["Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>]

That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone
"shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at
least one person died as a result; and the charge laid against the
shouter was "reckless disregard for human life resulting in culpable
homocide" and the elements of that offence being proved, was dismissed
on the basis that the "speech" was protected by the first amendment?

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is
paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Beck <rod.beck () unitedcablecompany com>
> Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2021 05:13
> To: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com>
> Subject: Re: Parler
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Your distinction sounds specious. The Courts have consistently that the
> 1st amendment protects free speech from government retaliation in many
> instances. It is not just prior restraint.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Roderick.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com () nanog org>
on
> behalf of Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf () dessus com>
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:11 AM
> To: nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: RE: Parler
>
> > The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting
> > freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to
sell
> > their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)
>
> You are correct and incorrect.  The First Amendment prohibits the
> Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint".  It
does
> nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its
> agents.
>
> You are also incorrect.  Freedom of Speech is Absolute.  There is no
> prior restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre,
etc.)"
> whatever that means.  That does not mean that speech does not have
> "consequences".  The first amendment only protects against prior
> restraint, it does not protect against the suffering of consequences.
> And of course "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the
> speech.
>
> Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell
that
> means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken
> prior to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an
> assumption of fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical
> question) and the courts do not rule on hypotheticals.  If you do not
> understand the difference then perhaps you should be sentenced to death
> since you have a hand, and having a hand it could hold a gun, and since
> it could hold a gun, you could also murder someone.  So therefore you
> should be put to death now as "prior restraint" to prevent you from
> committing murder.
>
> I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be
> self-evident.
>
> --
> Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is
paved
> with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.