Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Was it on a specific curriculum prior and was taken off? Otherwise, I'm not sure why that example is relevant.
sturg33
I
I would.be concerned if Florida was banning the sale of books.
I'm not at all concerned that florida is choosing to not allow porn or Marxist race bull **** in their public schools
Sounds like if that bothers you, you can elect someone different or you can advocate for private schools
sturg33
I
I'm not sure you understand what the first amendment protects.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Yeah everyone knows all it protects is conservatives from being "cancelled"
sturg33
I
You have a right to be censorious tyrant... But don't pretend you care about free speech
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
sturg33
I
At this point I'm convinced you are a "what about trump" bot
They're trying so hard to create some kind of equivalency to what we've seen from the dems but like most things they try it's embarrassingly stupid.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
y'all are self-aware after all
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Its not a whatabout. What you are complaining about was literally the Trump regime that did it.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
A homeowner gets angry at a county commission over a zoning dispute and writes a Facebook post accusing a local buildings official of being in the pocket of developers.
A right-wing broadcaster criticizing border policies accuses the secretary of homeland security of being a traitor.
A parent upset about the removal of a gay-themed book from library shelves goes to a school board meeting and calls the board chair a bigot and a homophobe.
All three are examples of Americans engaging in clamorous but perfectly legal speech about public figures that is broadly protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a case that dates back nearly 60 years, ruled that even if that speech might be damaging or include errors, it should generally be protected against claims of libel and slander. All three would lose that protection — and be subject to ruinous defamation lawsuits — under a bill that is moving through the Florida House and is based on longstanding goals of Gov. Ron DeSantis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/04/...W5VE3ZLBlEfCYtrebYe2bxnCdc3LeY&smid=url-share
A right-wing broadcaster criticizing border policies accuses the secretary of homeland security of being a traitor.
A parent upset about the removal of a gay-themed book from library shelves goes to a school board meeting and calls the board chair a bigot and a homophobe.
All three are examples of Americans engaging in clamorous but perfectly legal speech about public figures that is broadly protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a case that dates back nearly 60 years, ruled that even if that speech might be damaging or include errors, it should generally be protected against claims of libel and slander. All three would lose that protection — and be subject to ruinous defamation lawsuits — under a bill that is moving through the Florida House and is based on longstanding goals of Gov. Ron DeSantis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/04/...W5VE3ZLBlEfCYtrebYe2bxnCdc3LeY&smid=url-share
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The bill is an explicit effort to eviscerate a 1964 Supreme Court decision, The New York Times Company v. Sullivan. This bulwark of First Amendment law requires public figures to prove a news organization engaged in what the court called “actual malice” to win a defamation case. By preventing lawsuits based on unintentional mistakes, the decision freed news organizations to pursue vigorous reporting about public officials without fear of paying damages. The decision has even been applied by lower courts to bloggers and other speakers who make allegations about public figures.
Many conservatives, including Mr. DeSantis, have long chafed at the freedom that this decision gives to a news industry they consider to be too liberal. The new bill embodies that antagonism. It would sharply limit the definition of public figures, eliminating public employees like police officers from the category, even if they become public figures because of their actions.
It would change the definition of actual malice to include any allegation that is “inherently improbable” — an impossibly vague standard — or that is based on what it calls an “unverified” statement by an anonymous source. In fact, it says that all anonymous statements, a crucial tool for investigative reporting, are “presumptively false” for the purposes of a defamation case. Anonymous sources were the basis for much of The Washington Post’s coverage of Watergate and The Times’s exposure of the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program in 2005, among many other examples of journalism with significant impact.
Many conservatives, including Mr. DeSantis, have long chafed at the freedom that this decision gives to a news industry they consider to be too liberal. The new bill embodies that antagonism. It would sharply limit the definition of public figures, eliminating public employees like police officers from the category, even if they become public figures because of their actions.
It would change the definition of actual malice to include any allegation that is “inherently improbable” — an impossibly vague standard — or that is based on what it calls an “unverified” statement by an anonymous source. In fact, it says that all anonymous statements, a crucial tool for investigative reporting, are “presumptively false” for the purposes of a defamation case. Anonymous sources were the basis for much of The Washington Post’s coverage of Watergate and The Times’s exposure of the Bush administration’s domestic eavesdropping program in 2005, among many other examples of journalism with significant impact.