Free Speech

  • Thread starter A2K78
  • 1,025 comments
  • 62,695 views
Political Satire Is Protected Speech – Even If You Don’t Get the Joke

Should an obviously fake Facebook post—one made as political satire—end with a lawsuit and a bill to pay for a police response to the post? Of course not, and that’s why EFF filed an amicus brief in Lafayette City v. John Merrifield.

In this case, Merrifield made an obviously fake Facebook event satirizing right-wing hysteria about Antifa. The announcement specifically poked fun at the well-established genre of fake Antifa social media activity, used by some to drum up anti-Antifa sentiment. However, the mayor of Lafayette didn’t get the joke, and now Lafayette City officials want Merrifield to pay for the costs of policing the fake event.

In EFF’s amicus brief filed in support of Merrifield in the Louisiana Court of Appeal, we trace the rise and proliferation of obviously parodic fake events. These events range from fake concerts (“Drake live at the Cheesecake Factory”) to quixotic events designed to forestall natural disasters (“Blow Your Saxophone at Hurricane Florence”) to fake destruction of local monuments (“Stone Mountain Implosion”). This kind of fake event is a form of online speech. It’s a crucial form of social commentary whether it makes people laugh, builds resilience in the face of absurdity, or criticizes the powerful.

EFF makes a two-pronged legal argument. First, the First Amendment clearly protects the kind of satirical speech that Merrifield has made. Political satire and other parodic forms are an American tradition that goes back to the country’s founding. The amicus brief explains that “Facetious speech may be frivolously funny, sharply political, and everything in between, and it is all fully protected by the First Amendment, even when not everybody finds it humorous.” Even when the speech offends, it may still claim constitutional protection. While the State of Louisiana may not have seen the parody, the First Amendment still applies. Second, parodic speech, by its very definition, has no intent to cause the specific serious harm that the charge of incitement or similar criminal liabilities requires. After all, it was meant to make a point about online misinformation.

We hope the appeals court follows the law, and rejects the state’s case.
Click to expand...
 


Requiring legal identities would “cause a lot of people” to “think about their words,” Kennedy said Thursday. He’s confident the proposal would be constitutional and could gain Democratic support. Many newspapers require users to identify themselves in comment sections, he said.
Click to expand...
Oh my, that...that feels like infringement on the right to free expression laid out by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court weighed in on anonymity in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.

Justice John Paul Stevens
Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Click to expand...
Edit: I think requirements for interaction on social media platforms ought to be left up to those who provide such platforms, and those who provide the platforms should not be compelled by government to require anything.
 
Last edited:
UKMikey
It sounds like they're only interested in freedom of conservative speech (without consequences). Liberals can take a running jump off a short pier.
Click to expand...
I'd love for someone to offer up a reasonable analysis of the whole situation that doesn't come to this very same conclusion.

Government mandating individuals at public institutions disclose political affiliations.
 
TexRex
I'd love for someone to offer up a reasonable analysis of the whole situation that doesn't come to this very same conclusion.

Government mandating individuals at public institutions disclose political affiliations.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they should trawl Trump U and Prager U for more right-leaning, er, liberal arts professors.

 
Last edited:
UKMikey
Perhaps they should trawl Trump U and Prager U for more right-leaning, er, liberal arts professors.

Click to expand...

It's a pity that PragerU isn't an actual academic institution and Trump University, which was never an accredited school, is defunct as it was revealed to be a scam intended to defraud stupid people who thought you could learn to be born with a silver spoon up your ass; those seeking to continue their education after the latter collapsed are said to have moved on to playing slots.
 
TexRex
It's a pity that PragerU isn't an actual academic institution and Trump University, which was never an accredited school, is defunct as it was revealed to be a scam intended to defraud stupid people who thought you could learn to be born with a silver spoon up your ass; those seeking to continue their education after the latter collapsed are said to have moved on to playing slots.
Click to expand...
I should probably have pointed out that I knew this and it was just a joke.
 
UKMikey
I should probably have pointed out that I knew this and it was just a joke.
Click to expand...
I know.

:)

I was just adding to it with statements of fact and another statement that I couldn't substantiate but that which is reasonable to assume.
 
Court rules against Arkansas' Israel boycott pledge law

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that Arkansas' law requiring state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel is unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal judge's 2019 decision that dismissed the lawsuit by the Arkansas Times challenging the requirement. The newspaper had asked the judge to block the law, which requires contractors with the state to reduce their fees by 20 percent if they don’t sign the pledge.

The court said the law is written so broadly that it would also apply to vendors that support or promote a boycott.

“The Act prohibits the contractor from engaging in boycott activity outside the scope of the contractual relationship ‘on its own time and dime,'" the court said in its 2-1 decision. “Such a restriction violates the First Amendment."

The Times’ lawsuit said the University of Arkansas Pulaski Technical College refused to contract for advertising with the newspaper unless the Arkansas Times signed the pledge. The newspaper isn’t engaged in a boycott against Israel.

The appeals panel sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Brian Miller, who ruled in 2019 that refusing to purchase items wasn't protected speech by the First Amendment.

“Arkansas politicians had no business penalizing our clients for refusing to participate in this ideological litmus test," said Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represented the Times in the case. “Free speech isn’t a privilege you pay for, it’s a right guaranteed to every Arkansan.”

Arkansas’ law is similar to restrictions enacted in other states that have been challenged. The measures are aimed at a movement protesting Israel’s policies toward Palestinians. Similar measures in Arizona, Kansas, and Texas that were blocked were later allowed to be enforced after lawmakers narrowed the requirement so it only applied to larger contracts. Arkansas’ law applies to contracts worth $1,000 or more.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge's office said she was reviewing the opinion to determine the next step.

“The Attorney General is disappointed in the Eighth Circuit’s decision, which interferes with Arkansas’s law banning discrimination against Israel, an important American ally," spokesperson Amanda Priest said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 
I wasn't aware there was such an overwhelming amount of Arkanasasians or whatever they're called who do business with Israel. I'd actually be shocked if there was any sizeable Jewish population in the state.

**So I looked it up, there are a whopping 2,200 Jews in Arkansas :lol:
 
Last edited:
Joey D
...Arkanasasians or whatever they're called
Click to expand...

Arkansans or Arkansawyers are the preferred terms.

I've spent several days touring the state with my Jewish girlfriend whilst visiting my brother there. I focused on Native American mound sites and burials of cone-headed shamans. The state has distinctly different geographical and sociological regions. God and liquor have never run thicker than in NW Arkansas.
 
Dotini
Arkansans or Arkansawyers are the preferred terms.

I've spent several days touring the state with my Jewish girlfriend whilst visiting my brother there. I focused on Native American mound sites and burials of cone-headed shamans. The state has distinctly different geographical and sociological regions. God and liquor have never run thicker than in NW Arkansas.
Click to expand...
Arkantomsawyers.

I've spent dozens of hours flying low over the West Memphis area of Arkansas while mapping the Memphis area, and I was struck by how flat and vast the farming region of the Mississippi floodplain is. I also found it interesting that Memphis itself is basically safe from floods - the river seems to be on the easternmost edge of its floodplain at that point, with Memphis perched on a ridge, and the entirety of eastern Arkansas so prone to floods that they've build a levee system possibly hundreds of miles long. Literally the entire eastern border of Arkansas is an earthen wall like a medieval fortress. I even landed at the West Memphis airport a few times and I kid you not there's a Jehovah's Witness church directly across the street from the FBO.

There is only one reason I would ever live in Memphis and that's if I flew for FedEx. And if I flew for FedEx I would absolutely live on Mud Island. And if I lived on Mud Island, I would visit the Mississippi River Museum again and walk the massive river diorama again, complete with flowing water volume simulation beginning at its tributaries. Highly recommended if you've never been there, probably the coolest and largest diorama-type thing I've ever seen. It's a shame Memphis is a hellhole and doesn't take very good care of it. Of anything, really. You'd think they'd be raking in all that FedEx tax money but I guess they spend it all arresting black people instead of improving city services.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
I'd love for someone to offer up a reasonable analysis of the whole situation that doesn't come to this very same conclusion.

Government mandating individuals at public institutions disclose political affiliations.
Click to expand...
We pretty much have the same thing being attempted in the UK, with our right-wing government putting in place a free-speech champion to ensure that free-speech is possible in UK universities and institutions. A worthy aim in itself, but not one that this government in any way can be trusted to do, given that they have or are proposing to:

  • ..that universities should take measures when “staff and students face criticism for expressing lawful views”.
  • mandating that student unions’ Codes of Practice formally “oppose boycotts”
  • specifically says a “head of faculty should not force or pressure academics” into “decolonising the curriculum”
  • Greenpeace was placed on a terrorism watch list
  • banned schools from using material from groups it considered “anti-capitalist”
  • equalities minister said it was illegal to teach about “white privilege” as a fact
  • the party that wouldn’t let 16-17 year olds vote in the last election and when asked why, MP Tobias Ellwood said it was because “we know it will favour one particular party”
  • appointed former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre as head of Ofcom
  • a prime minister got fired from two newspapers for lying.

I could go on, but this has very little to do with free-speech, and far more to do with protecting conservative messages from valid criticism.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...ing-conservatives-b1805301.html#comments-area
 


What. The. ****.

Why?!

Whatever gripe you may have about "cancel culture"--and conservatives haven't shied away from griping about it, while actively endorsing it when it's in their interest--Congress is the absolute last place it should be addressed.
 
GymJordan being a ****ing moron yet again. Actively wanting a company to be forced to comply with someone they don't agree with is the exact opposite intention of the 1A.
 


McLaren
GymJordan
Click to expand...
I've seen this on a few occasions--what's the deal?

McLaren
Actively wanting a company to be forced to comply with someone they don't agree with is the exact opposite intention of the 1A.
Click to expand...
I'm not concerned about the desire. That's a lie. I am concerned about that particular desire, but that's not what concerns me most. Not by a longshot.

Let's set aside, for a moment, the fact that "cancel culture" is a manifestation of the free market, free expression, freedom of choice, freedom of association and property rights. And let's set aside Republicans purportedly holding these things in high regard.

Jordan is a member of the United States House of Representatives. So is Nadler. The House of Representatives is the lower house of Congress. Congress is the legislative branch of the United States government. As the legislative body, Congress exists to draft legislation and put laws into effect.

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution holds that "[Congress shall make no law] abridging freedom of speech."

The very best thing that could come of any part of Congress convening to address "cancel culture" is wasted time and money.

Congress needs to stay right the **** out of it. Jordan knows this but he's compelled to pander to his idiot base.
 
TexRex
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution holds that "[Congress shall make no law] abridging freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Well, except for when their party has a strong Supreme Court majority that already seems deliberately handpicked and chomping at the bit to throw out decades of jurisprudence just because they don't like it.
 
Last edited:
Tornado
Well, except for when their party has a strong Supreme Court majority that already seems deliberately handpicked and chomping at the bit to throw out decades of jurisprudence just because they don't like it.
Click to expand...
I have no difficulty accepting that some of these Republican members of Congress are constitutionally bankrupt. The Supreme Court represents a much higher hurdle. I expect the Court would uphold the right to free expression re: "cancel culture" and any dissenting Justice would be demonstrably constitutionally bankrupt.
 
TexRex
I've seen this on a few occasions--what's the deal?
Click to expand...
Jordan knew about sexual abuse allegations from at least 8 players at Ohio State University committed by the late Richard Strauss & did nothing to address them. A former colleague of Jordan reportedly contacted 2 witnesses to pressure them into supporting Jordan. Jordan, to no one's surprise, believes the whole thing is just a "political plot". 1 of the wrestlers later brought forth evidence that Jordan, the same colleague, & Jordan's brother all conspired in witness tampering & intimidation when they contacted Mark Coleman & his parents wanting him to take back his accusations. Last I checked, the investigation is still ongoing.
Edit* Checking again, appears the university paid nearly $41 million in settlements last year involving 162 men & their lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
McLaren
Jordan knew about sexual abuse allegations from at least 8 players at Ohio State University committed by the late Richard Strauss & did nothing to address them. A former colleague of Jordan reportedly contacted 2 witnesses to pressure them into supporting Jordan. Jordan, to no one's surprise, believes the whole thing is just a "political plot". 1 of the wrestlers later brought forth evidence that Jordan, the same colleague, & Jordan's brother all conspired in witness tampering & intimidation when they contacted Mark Coleman & his parents wanting him to take back his accusations. Last I checked, the investigation is still ongoing.
Edit* Checking again, appears the university paid nearly $41 million in settlements last year involving 162 men & their lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Oh, my...
 

Latest Posts

Back