Reload this Page Cyber Attack Causing No Damage

[Griff]

The corollary to Bruce's thread.

Anonymous, having zero tolerance for attacks on free speech, wants to shutdown the free speech of radical Muslims. I suppose it may temporarily hurt recruitment in the West but I'd guess those web sites are likely more effective as honey pots for western intelligence agencies than for getting nut ball messages out.

[footfootfoot]

Griff, you need to bone up on your first amendment. There are specific limits to free or protected speech.

Incitement to riot or to commit crimes is not protected speech.
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/ar...se-incitement/

One of my teachers described the first amendment as a pie chart representing all types of speech or expression. Slowly, slice after slice representing expression that is not protected, e.g. obscenity, slander, libel, is removed we are left with a rather thin sliver that represents what is protected and where. For example, you have no first amendment rights in a private forum like a private club or school.

This isn't to defend Anonymous' actions; a blanket attack would wipe out their protected speech as well as their unprotected speech. The over-arching idea behind the first amendment is that there is a "market place of ideas" and the counter to unpopular speech isn't to remove it from the marketplace but to add more ideas to counter it. In other words more ideas not fewer. And fundamentalists of all stripes are in the fewer ideas camp and ultimately anti free speech. Which is highly ironic since they are claiming their rights under the very right they want to destroy.

Originally Posted by http://nahmodlaw.com/2013/12/04/know-your-constitution-5-free-speech-and-hate-speech/

...One answer is that the First Amendment creates a marketplace of ideas in which everyone can participate. Everyone can try to sell his or her ideas to the marketplace and the buyers in the marketplace eventually decide which ideas have value and which do not, which ideas are truthful and which are not. We are all sellers and buyers in this marketplace.
~snip~
However, despite what I’ve just said, there are some communications that are not allowed in the marketplace of ideas. Obscene speech, for one, carefully defined by the Supreme Court, is excluded from the marketplace of ideas. Another kind of communication, child pornography, is also not allowed because its production involves child abuse. The reasons for these exceptions include history and the belief that these kinds of communications have little or no redeeming social value.

~snip~

The Supreme Court’s answer to this particular question is that even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?

Finally, and perhaps most important, think about how the marketplace of ideas functions: even if hateful ideas are communicated, the theory (hope?) is that counter-speech will emerge to rebut it and to fight it. In other words, more speech rather than less is the remedy.

TL;DR
It's a slippery slope.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Griff, you need to bone up on your first amendment. There are specific limits to free or protected speech.

Incitement to riot or to commit crimes is not protected speech.

And just how does your stinkin' first amendment apply to Anonymous?

We are the internet, we are the world! Bwahahahahahaha.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Griff, you need to bone up on your first amendment. There are specific limits to free or protected speech.

Incitement to riot or to commit crimes is not protected speech.
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/ar...se-incitement/

One of my teachers described the first amendment as a pie chart representing all types of speech or expression. Slowly, slice after slice representing expression that is not protected, e.g. obscenity, slander, libel, is removed we are left with a rather thin sliver that represents what is protected and where.

I would posit that each of those slices were taken away by an established counter-revolutionary government after the radicals lost control of their revolution. Incitement and slander were exactly what the revolutionary generation engaged in.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Griff

I would posit that each of those slices were taken away by an established counter-revolutionary government after the radicals lost control of their revolution. Incitement and slander were exactly what the revolutionary generation engaged in.

Here is a list of exceptions. For an explanation of each one check the wikipedia article

1. Incitement
2. False statements of fact
3. Obscenity
4. Child pornography
5. Fighting words and offensive speech
6. Threats
7. Speech owned by others
8. Commercial speech
   
9. Restrictions based on special capacity of Government:

Government as Employer
Government as Regulator of the Airwaves
Government as Educator
Government as Subsidizer/Speaker
Government as Regulator of the Bar
Government as Controller of the Military
Government as Prison Warden
Government as Regulator of Immigration

[Griff]

I am certain we are have two completely different, wholly unrelated conversations. You are talking about free speech as interpreted by our government. I'm talking about organizations that are operating outside of legal frameworks, although one fancies itself a government. My reference to free speech was to get people to notice that speech was being defended by suppressing speech. A little irony to introduce the idea of electronic attacks on a low tech insurgency.

[BigV]

The difference between an official and a popular definition of a single term is often at the heart of such disagreements. Look at the hullaballoo over Bill Cosby's alleged actions. Is he "guilty"? There are at least two courts in which such a verdict can be rendered, the court of law and the court of public opinion.

The standards for guilt or innocence in each court are dramatically different, but the word "guilty" sounds exactly the same in both and context and process are just too much damn work for many, who prefer instead to skip right to the verdict.

Your example of "free speech" fits this mold perfectly.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Griff

I am certain we are have two completely different, wholly unrelated conversations. You are talking about free speech as interpreted by our government. I'm talking about organizations that are operating outside of legal frameworks, although one fancies itself a government. My reference to free speech was to get people to notice that speech was being defended by suppressing speech. A little irony to introduce the idea of electronic attacks on a low tech insurgency.

Ahh, yes. Now I see. The first amendment is bit of a bugbear for me.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

My reference to free speech was to get people to notice that speech was being defended by suppressing speech.

One type of free speech that is a threat to all is one that promotes hate.

One can demand protection of free speech using rhetoric. Or one can demand protection of free speech by also knowing how, what, and why other types of free speech are so important and necessary. Only moderates also appreciate the many reasons how and why.

Defined are two completely different people - an extremist and a moderate. An extremist will demand free speech only because that is the political agenda they are ordered to worship. Free speech (hate) that promoted 8 million dead Jews was advocated by extremists. Others who also learn underlying details - ie the purpose of that free speech - know that hate speech is dangerous to the purpose of free speech and to the advancment of mankind.

Free speech that promotes hate is dangerous to all. Free speech that also discusses underlying details - the whys - (rahter than soundbyte rhetoric) is essential for the advancement of mankind. Free speech that advicates hate should be viciously attacked as destructive even to all other types of free speech.

[classicman]

Mr. Typo Troll today.