10-09-2019, 01:57 PM
(10-09-2019, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Freedom of speech is limited based on the damage it does. You know that this issue involves much more than just "you can't say mean things about people". You have read the statute and you know that is a false equivalency.
Do you also oppose laws against inciting violence? That is another area where "freedom of speech" is limited based on the damage it could cause.
In the way you have phrased it, it's not a false equivalency. You have gone on to say it's possible that me posting you were fired could possibly be grounds for harassment because of some vague idea of intent to do harm, or another word you could sub in...being mean.
Interesting you bring that up because it has met a couple SCOTUS cases because of the freedom of speech implications and that has established a two pronged test to determine it. These prongs help establish how far the speech can go before being illegal where as this very arbitrary and vague interpretation of harassment has not.
In 2016 North Carolina's Supreme Court struck down a cyber bullying law for being overly broad in limiting what those kids can say. New York's was struck down in 2014. Minnesota's Supreme Court just overturned a cyber bullying case because of the same thing. Trying to define Cyberbullying has continually been met with court challenges because it is essentially taking kids freedom of speech when terms encouraging harm or illegal acts aren't present in the speech.
