[ SECRET POST #3233 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3233 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 030 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Free speach

[ibbity]

What this is, is a reasonably factual (if truncated) explanation of how free speech legally works in the US, minus the parts about how you can be arrested if you are using your free speech to put other people in danger (such as trying to incite others to attack them.)

Re: Free speach

[ill_omened]

It's always traditionally been viewed as freedom from undue censure for the views expressed within 'reasonable' boundries. That someone can be fired for expressing their opinions for example, has always stood on some dodgy grounds. And the idea of 'free speech only means the government can't imprison you for what you say' minimises the overall idea, and takes us down a dangerous path.

Re: Free speach

[sarillia]

What gets me about that argument is that it seems to imply that rights are granted by the government rather than there being rights that all people should ethically have that the government simply pledges to uphold for their citizens. It suggests that rights are a subjective thing that change when you move from country to country. Which is true of legal rights but what happened to the idea of natural rights?

Re: Free speach

[ibbity]

The point is that people who scream about how free speech means that they shouldn't face any opposition for the things they say are being idiots.

Re: Free speach

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Sure, I think we should be talking about things like EA Games pressuring publishers not to run critical reviews, or tobacco industry pressure on TV Networks in the 70s and 80s.

However, often "free speech" is trotted out in fandom for examples like:

1. A big-name publisher didn't buy my last book. "Free speech!"
2. You can't ban me from commenting, "free speech!"
3. Boycotting my works is censorship, "free speech!"

#1 and #2 are actually covered by first amendment protections as editorial privilege. (See the Zimmerman Trial for prior art leading to that principle.) #3 falls under the penumbra of the First Amendment via NAACP v. Alabama, and was a form of protest used by the founding fathers (such as they were.)