You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic". Freedom of speech is not freedom to write monumental falsehoods in the knowledge it is not true. That is called, 'malicious defamation'.
You’re not aware of this because you just came here from Reddit.
You came here from an ideological bubble where you have never
been challenged and never needed to defend your positions
Wut ...? I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger who has been harassed by police over my positions and has had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
Speaking of defending my position, I've been (counter)-sued in the past for defamation and defended myself and won and here is the public judgment. Unlike Jones, I complied with court rules and then flayed the other side's case to death with (legitimate) procedural motions.
You believe that a person should be punished for their speech
Well yeah, sometimes.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic"
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.
Hi there,
Well yeah, sometimes. To quote US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v US, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a panic". Freedom of speech is not freedom to write monumental falsehoods in the knowledge it is not true. That is called, 'malicious defamation'.
Wut ...? I'm a right-wing Conservative blogger who has been harassed by police over my positions and has had to take legal action against them, representing myself, to force them to back down. I even published the police apology in my article here.
Speaking of defending my position, I've been (counter)-sued in the past for defamation and defended myself and won and here is the public judgment. Unlike Jones, I complied with court rules and then flayed the other side's case to death with (legitimate) procedural motions.
Well, you're wrong. All speech, of any nature must always be allowed. And not even the supreme court quote rebuts that:
The speech is protected. Maliciously causing panic is not protected.
You MIGHT cause panic through speech, but you might also cause it by igniting a smoke grenade. Either way, the crime is maliciously causing panic, not speech.
And it's wrong to conclude, "he was punished for his speech"
It's wrong in exactly the same way that a Leftist is wrong when they say things like, "he was shot by police for driving while black" - no, he wasn't.
Both of those are the same cognitive error - failure to accurately ascribe a cause to an effect.
My apologies. Got ahead of myself.
I thought there was general agreement that Jones is entitled to his opinion, even if his opinion is batshit crazy. He did not intend, nor did he participate in any "harassment" - and the case against him was frivolous from the start.
One anecdote: when they demanded he turn over his emails, he turned them all over. Apparently in his spam folder there were illegal photos that he wasn't aware of. They then claimed he was trying to get them in trouble by sending them.