Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Glenn Greenwald: The war on free speech" video.

  1. Love Glenn, hate UnHerd.
    5
  2. @CLCL748  Example of lying that can be criminalized, versus lying that can't: Say you claim to be a veteran to obtain some tangible benefit, hiring preference, etc. That may be fraud. Or, say you claim to be a veteran to impress your date or your neighbors. That cannot be a crime.
    4
  3. The words that describe the speech that can be punished cannot appear here! 😂
    3
  4.  @CLCL748  ❤️❤️❤️ Strossen on "hate speech" (not a legal category) is second to none! At first, she reads "technical," but this stuff is technical. On the second reading, it all comes together.
    3
  5. ​ @fredgarvinMP 💯 Precisely.
    2
  6. @CLCL748  Just to be clear: no general rule against presenting untrue statements as true would be consistent with the First Amendment. Even lying isn't, as a general matter, illegal or actionable. It could be protected speech. See US v. Alvarez.
    2
  7. @CLCL748  Yes, defamation is an exception to First Amendment protected speech, but it involves more than stating a factual falsehood about someone. In fact, if the person is well-known, the falsehood would generally need to be either deliberate (uttered with knowledge that it was a lie), or stated with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. That's known as "New York Times malice." There are some great books on the First Amendment, intended for a general audience. Nadine Strossen is great. I am truly afraid we are close to losing these rights. Billionaires can buy up the commons -- and that includes free speech fora. Let's face it -- private universities always maintained designated free speech fora. They can curtail that, bowing to donor pressure, and that's only the beginning.
    2
  8.  @CLCL748  I also answered, but guess what? I know you know. :)
    2
  9. That trend has been effectively reversed in this century.
    1
  10. Well, either that's a truism (free speech is the speech that cannot be abridged under the First Amendment), or it's not quite right. True threats, incitement to imminent violence, conspiracy to comment an illegal act can all be prosecuted.
    1
  11. ​@ywtcc What you posted has nothing to do with First Amendment free speech in the US. If someone wants to sue for breach of contract, or to report inaccurate advertising, or to sue for divorce, and the opposing party's speech was incidental to that, fine, but they have to prove up their assertions. There is no roving commission with the "authority" to restrain anyone's speech. Nor would losing something like a breach of contract case restrain your future speech. You could walk out of court and issue a statement that the ruling was unfair.
    1
  12. @ywtcc  The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court jurisprudence, neither shall anyone else. (You've got a problem with that?) Read a few cases, like Brandenburg v Ohio, or the Westboro Baptist Church case, or Virginia v. Black, and learn something.
    1
  13. There is no such thing as a "free speech absolutist." This is an epithet intended to throw shade on true advocates of First Amendment law.
    1