|
|
|
|
|
|
by jpdb
2243 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting article! I'll try to pay more mind in the future. That said, > First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute. Maybe not in the author's circles, but in this particular scenario, that point was in dispute. |
|
|
Sure, but that's not a useful thing to know. I recall when Ken compared saying that to something akin to the following conversation, which I'm reconstructing from memory:
Help! I've been bitten by a snake and I want to know if it's poisonous!
Unless you're eating the snake, it only matters if the snake is venomous.
Okay, so can you tell me if the snake is venomous then?
Not all snakes are venomous.
So the important point is not to dispute over whether any speech can be banned, but whether the speech in question fits one of the categories of unprotected speech:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...