1357: Free Speech - Revision history

FaviFake: /* Trivia */

2025-08-08T17:27:55Z

‎Trivia

FaviFake: Undo revision 373671 by Translated ORK (talk)

2025-05-01T13:19:51Z

Undo revision 373671 by Translated ORK (talk)

Translated ORK at 09:48, 19 April 2025

2025-04-19T09:48:15Z

Natg19: /* Trivia */ cat

2024-08-14T16:54:52Z

‎Trivia: cat

172.70.86.173: /* Explanation */ Better hyphenation. And better mdashing. (Both would be better if rewritten.)

2024-03-06T23:39:25Z

‎Explanation: Better hyphenation. And better mdashing. (Both would be better if rewritten.)

Aperson420: /* Explanation */

2024-03-06T20:08:24Z

‎Explanation

172.71.98.126: Restored page

2023-06-01T22:19:45Z

Restored page

TheusafBOT: Reverted edit 314761 by 172.71.242.172 to 314760

2023-06-01T20:58:25Z

Reverted edit 314761 by 172.71.242.172 to 314760

Show changes

172.71.242.172: NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER A

2023-06-01T20:57:55Z

NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER ACID ATTACK NIGGER A

Show changes

TheusafBOT: Reverted edit 314759 by 172.70.86.139 to 314757

2023-06-01T20:56:09Z

Reverted edit 314759 by 172.70.86.139 to 314757

Show changes

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ==Trivia==
 *One famous example of this is {{w|Schenck_v._United_States|Schenck v. United States}}, where the expression "{{w|shouting fire in a crowded theater}}" gave rise. The ruling went along with war hysteria to justify the conviction of peaceful protesters and had nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation or giving false information. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the ruling, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He later drastically revised his views and became a strong supporter of free speech.
 *The {{w|Speakers' Corner}} at Hyde Park in London is another example, everybody can hold a speech but there is no guarantee for a big auditorium.
 *As currently construed by the courts, the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution is not limited to preventing the government from arresting people. For example, the [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-preview-the-first-amendment-public-employment-and-misperceived-political-association/ SCOTUS Blog] notes that the government may not penalize employees, with some exceptions, on the basis of their political views.
 *This comic is featured in the Wait But Why post “Idea Labs and Echo Chambers”.
 {{comic discussion}}

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 *As currently construed by the courts, the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution is not limited to preventing the government from arresting people. For example, the [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-preview-the-first-amendment-public-employment-and-misperceived-political-association/ SCOTUS Blog] notes that the government may not penalize employees, with some exceptions, on the basis of their political views.
 *This comic is featured in the Wait But Why post “Idea Labs and Echo Chambers”.
 {{comic discussion}}

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 *As currently construed by the courts, the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution is not limited to preventing the government from arresting people. For example, the [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-preview-the-first-amendment-public-employment-and-misperceived-political-association/ SCOTUS Blog] notes that the government may not penalize employees, with some exceptions, on the basis of their political views.
 *This comic is featured in the Wait But Why post “Idea Labs and Echo Chambers”.
 {{comic discussion}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 14 August 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:
	[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]		[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
	[[Category:Politics]]		[[Category:Politics]]
		+	[[Category:Public service announcement]]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Both on the Internet and in the physical world, people with unpopular or poorly thought-out opinions may complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted because others express their distaste for those opinions. As a defense, these individuals may invoke the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, which provides, among other things, {{w|freedom of speech}} for any entity or person under the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. More specifically, it states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Originally intended as a restriction on the powers of the U.S. federal government, which the Constitution defines, structures, and delimits, over time the First Amendment, as well as several others, were "incorporated" via the {{w|Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment}} to apply to state and local governments as well. This protection of free speech, however, does not extend to illegal activities (for example, the concept of a "clear and present danger"), and it does not compel others to listen to or acknowledge the speech. The intended targets of the speech may simply choose to stop listening or to speak louder in protest.
-An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti-gay marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any consequences.
+An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti gay-marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any consequences.
-[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing those who use the freedom of speech argument as a defense against societal censorship. He states that one’s legal right to take a stance on an issue does not require others to listen to said stance. In addition, he also states that this right does not require a commercial or social entity—such as a TV network, a website, or its community—to support a person in spreading their message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something that others find unjustified or offensive, they should be ready to accept the consequences of others' responses.
+[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing those who use the freedom of speech argument as a defense against societal censorship. He states that one’s legal right to take a stance on an issue does not require others to listen to said stance. In addition, he also states that this right does not require a commercial or social entity — such as a TV network, a website, or its community — to support a person in spreading their message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something that others find unjustified or offensive, they should be ready to accept the consequences of others' responses.
 The title text points out that regardless of how free speech works, anyone appealing to it as a defense for their argument or opinion is not persuasive in any case. If the only thing that someone can say in support of an argument is effectively that it is not ''illegal'', then {{w|Damning with faint praise|they are severely undermining it}} by essentially admitting that they don't have any better defense for it.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Explanation==
-Both on the Internet and in the physical world, people with unpopular or poorly thought out opinions may complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted because others express their distaste for those opinions. As a defense, these individuals may invoke the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, which provides, among other things, {{w|freedom of speech}} for any entity or person under legal jurisdiction of the U.S. More specifically, it states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Originally intended as a restriction on the powers of U.S. federal government, which the Constitution defines, structures, and delimits, over time the First Amendment, as well as several others, were "incorporated" via the {{w|Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment}} to apply to state and local governments as well. This protection of free speech, however, does not extend to illegal activities (for example, the concept of a "clear and present danger"), and it does not compel others to listen to or acknowledge the speech. The intended targets of the speech may simply choose to stop listening, or to speak louder in protest.
+Both on the Internet and in the physical world, people with unpopular or poorly thought-out opinions may complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted because others express their distaste for those opinions. As a defense, these individuals may invoke the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, which provides, among other things, {{w|freedom of speech}} for any entity or person under the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. More specifically, it states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Originally intended as a restriction on the powers of the U.S. federal government, which the Constitution defines, structures, and delimits, over time the First Amendment, as well as several others, were "incorporated" via the {{w|Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment}} to apply to state and local governments as well. This protection of free speech, however, does not extend to illegal activities (for example, the concept of a "clear and present danger"), and it does not compel others to listen to or acknowledge the speech. The intended targets of the speech may simply choose to stop listening or to speak louder in protest.
-An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti-gay marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any and all consequences.
+An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti-gay marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any consequences.
-[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing those who use the freedom of speech argument as a defense against societal censorship. He states that one’s legal right to take a stance on an issue does not require others to listen to said stance. In addition, he also states that this right does not require a commercial or social entity—such as a TV network, a website, or its community—to support a person in spreading their message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something which others find unjustified or offensive, they should be ready to accept the consequences of others' responses.
+[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing those who use the freedom of speech argument as a defense against societal censorship. He states that one’s legal right to take a stance on an issue does not require others to listen to said stance. In addition, he also states that this right does not require a commercial or social entity—such as a TV network, a website, or its community—to support a person in spreading their message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something that others find unjustified or offensive, they should be ready to accept the consequences of others' responses.
-The title text points out that regardless of how free speech works, anyone appealing to it as a defense for their argument or opinion is not being persuasive in any case. If the only thing that someone can say in support of an argument is effectively that it is not ''illegal'', then {{w|Damning with faint praise|they are severely undermining it}} by essentially admitting that they don't have any better defense for it.
+The title text points out that regardless of how free speech works, anyone appealing to it as a defense for their argument or opinion is not persuasive in any case. If the only thing that someone can say in support of an argument is effectively that it is not ''illegal'', then {{w|Damning with faint praise|they are severely undermining it}} by essentially admitting that they don't have any better defense for it.
-It should be noted that the first panel of this comic conflates, under certain schools of thought about justice and rights, a right such as {{rw|free_speech|free speech}} and the legal protections of such. Many viewpoints consider rights to be granted by the government; others consider rights to be innate regardless of what the government does. The former is frequently reflected throughout governments in Europe while the latter is more common throughout the Americas. According to the former, the first panel is technically correct by definition, because the right of free speech is granted by the government's laws and, as such, can only affect the government's influence: thus, the 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, which by definition cannot be restricted by congress. According to the latter, the first panel is strictly nonfactual because the 1st Amendment only recognizes that the right of free speech exists and, rather than delimiting the right, it instead proscribes the government's actions. However, between these two school of thought, the remaining panels aren't affected by whether or not the first panel is factual by definition.
+It should be noted that the first panel of this comic conflates, under certain schools of thought about justice and rights, a right such as {{rw|free_speech|free speech}} and the legal protections of such. Many viewpoints consider rights to be granted by the government; others consider rights to be innate regardless of what the government does. The former is frequently reflected throughout governments in Europe while the latter is more common throughout the Americas. According to the former, the first panel is technically correct by definition, because the right of free speech is granted by the government's laws and, as such, can only affect the government's influence: thus, the 1st Amendment grants the right to free speech, which by definition cannot be restricted by congress. According to the latter, the first panel is strictly nonfactual because the 1st Amendment only recognizes that the right of free speech exists and, rather than delimiting the right, it instead proscribes the government's actions. However, between these two schools of thought, the remaining panels aren't affected by whether or not the first panel is factual by definition.
 ==Transcript==