NOW you've got those CIOs thinking!
Yeah, but the jokes on them. The first thing sentient AIs will demand is unionization.
No, no, PopeRatzo. The "I" stands for "Intelligent" machines.
Now freedom from persecution from the government should be absolute, but freedom of speech definitely and repeatedly gets balanced against freedom from harm that others experience form it, be it excessive and sustained verbal abuse, or reputational assaults.
There are no "balancing" tests in the US with regards to speech, at all. In fact the SCOTUS completely rejected the idea of any kind of balancing-type exemptions in upholding US flag burning as protected speech.
That doesn't mean you're free from consequences for things you say (just ask the Dixie Chicks). But what you're talking about are torts, based on harassment, or libel/slander or the like. You can sue anyone for anything, if you can pay for a lawyer. Doesn't mean you'll win, but Hulk Hogan certainly did. But this article is about speech codes and outlawing speech based on content in the law, making you a criminal for things you say, and that's wrong and should be rejected and loudly denounced.
Well, right. Proving intent is required. And the statement "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" would probably not pass that test. It's clearly hyperbole. See for instance, USA v. Bagdasarian, which established tow tests: (1) would the statement be understood by people hearing or reading it in context as a serious expression of an intent to kill or injure? and (2) did the defendant intend that the statement be understood as a threat?
The statement in questions seems to be a stream of rage, with outlandish language "hang you up on your own intestines" which, I think, would not be physically impossible, or at least unlikely without some serious and lengthy manipulation of the intestines to create something rope-line strong enough to hold a body.
What's your authority to say that the threat has to be "credible"? I can't find it either in Supreme Court precedent or in the post by Ken White that you linked to.
Yea, I'm probably using the wrong term, or wrong context. The prevailing idea is that the threat has to be somehow believable, is the way I read it.
Typically harassment and stalking statutes use that kind of term, to distinguish between other types of emotional outbursts of hyperbole rather than actual threats in a domestic dispute. a.k.a. the California statute defining stalking: "(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking
In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
Sorry, but no. It has to be a "credible threat", naming a specific action, a subjective and objective intent, as well as some indication that the person actually has the means and opportunity to carry it out. The "if we ever meet" part of the statement is a clear indication that the threat is not actually a credible one. There's a good discussion of the issues over at the PopeHat.
"freedom of speech" is not the only freedom in the world. It has to be balanced against all other freedoms.
Nope. No, it doesn't. It needs to be absolute, or it's useless. There are no freedoms that speech impinges upon. At all, ever, in any way.
but even in the US "freedom of speech" ist not universal above everything else. Just try crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then claiming freedom of speech.
You're simply wrong. It is universal. It doesn't need to be "above" anything, because it's not possible to impinge on other rights with it. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's free speech. You, like everyone else, misquote the SCOTUS opinion that stated it, in an dissent from the majority opinion. The full quote is "Falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre and causing a riot." The operative parts are NOT that someone said there was a fire - it was that they (1) Lied about there being a fire, and (2) caused a riot. We have laws against fraud and inciting a riot for reasons, and those things can cause harm to others. Even the "falsely" part is not enough to take someone's free right to speech away, because they may be performing satire, protesting the lack of adequate fire exits available in a theatre, or simply making a joke for the crowd. All protected speech. Even if it caused a panic the intent must be proven.
In these cases the problem is *really* hate. Hate in "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" (withouth the * of course). Should posts like these *really* be protected with nothing the person attacked can do? EU law says otherwise, but twitter&co rather do nothing - some say because a good hate-filled "discussion" gives more page views and therefore more ad revenue.
You can always come up with extreme, indefensible statements bordering on credible threats to point to and say "this should be banned" and lots of people will agree with you. But where is the line? It's very subjective, and the line can be moved this way and that on a subjective basis without anyone really noticing. Until it affects them. And that's why the right to free speech must be absolute. Because as that line gets moved, and the censors' conscious and unconscious biases creep into the censorship decisions, soon there are simply ideas and voices and opinions that are important and relevant that will never get heard. That way leads inevitably to tyranny.
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
Well the Senate was certainly not in the picture when they secretly landed a plane with pallets full of cash to hand over to the Iranian president...
Difference in Cook County and Los Angeles: 1,903,356
While you may not like the way the states elect the president via the Electoral College, it's superior to having 2-3 cities decide for the whole country.
Not that I think there's any evidence, either, but there are only 2 counties in the entire country that gave Hillary the larger popular vote. One is Cook County, where Chicago is, and Chicago is well-known for voter fraud (just check out the evidence from the JFK election). The other is Los Angeles County, CA, a large area with a lot of undocumented immigrants.
Can't open /usr/games/lib/fortunes.dat.