Tennessee Authorities Arrest Man For ‘Posting an Anti-Police Meme’ on Social Media

[Agema]

How is a private citizen using their right to free speech petitioning a company to fire someone equivalent to "not allowed to have jobs, houses, finances or families"?

It's not.

But it's a sign of just how utterly hopeless the debate on free speech is. Essentially, the free speech debate, with all its nuance and complexities, is driven almost entirely by the inane triviality of right-wingers whining that they can't do stuff like call black people n******s with total impunity.

That is the central pillar which all their contorted logical architecture is built around and held up by. They run the arguments, view the responses, scurry away to their echo chambers and add another portico to their mismatched house of horrors for next time. There's no real intelligence, depth, clear thinking or genuine ideological conviction, it's just the frustration that they can't do whatever they want postrationalised with a load of waffle to make it sound like there's a real moral principle to it all.

 

[Silvanus]

Should a person be able to use their free speech to give people misleading instructions on how to vote?

No.

....Hey! I kept reading that 'drawing a line' on this issue is really difficult, but that was easy!

 

[Worgen]

Every god-damned time people call for some-one else to be fired for some stupid post or wearing a shirt people don't like.
The people who went after youtuber Alpha Omega Sin with false child abuse allegations trying to get his kid taken away from him.
Laughing Witch and Crew who years ago tried to get Dr Phil Mason fired or arrested.

The streamer Destiny has been witch hunted by both the left and right and he noticed some interesting differences. The left would go after his advertisers, the right would go after his family and him.

 

[Houseman]

No.

....Hey! I kept reading that 'drawing a line' on this issue is really difficult, but that was easy!

So if I say "you can vote by taking a long walk off a short pier", should I be arrested?

 

[Silvanus]

So if I say "you can vote by taking a long walk off a short pier", should I be arrested?

Nope.

 

[Houseman]

Nope.

What's the difference? If I make it into an official looking image, should I be arrested then? Where's the line?

 

[BrawlMan]

The Tennessee police must love sucking at their job. It's one thing if he threatens or intended death of an officer, but it's really petty when the message is just another variation of "Fuck the police!". There are a billion variation of that message. Someone must be thin skinned and not as tough as they think they are. I ain't defending the asshole, and should be called out on it at best and banned from Twitter at worst. Not arrested. All it shows how weak they are if some dipshit riles them up, but they sit on their asses and do nothing when crazed right-wingers, Neo Nazi, and KKK threaten to storm the capital.

 

[Silvanus]

What's the difference? If I make it into an official looking image, should I be arrested then? Where's the line?

The difference is that they're completely different things; it's a bit like asking "what's the difference" between poking somebody lightly on the arm and stabbing them with a knife.

As for where the line is, it's a bit further than that. Further than the poke but not quite as far as the stab.

 

[Houseman]

The difference is that they're completely different things; it's a bit like asking "what's the difference" between poking somebody lightly on the arm and stabbing them with a knife.

As for where the line is, it's a bit further than that. Further than the poke but not quite as far as the stab.

Okay, so the line is "further". What does that look like, in terms of posters I am allowed to make under the protections of free speech?
Am I allowed to put Hillary's face on a poster saying "you can vote by taking a long walk off a short pier"?
Her face, plus the slogan, plus a line at the bottom saying "paid for by Hillary for President campaign"?

Or do I need to change my slogan to be something that people might legitimately believe, like "the polling station is at [address that is actually a landfill]?"

 

[Avnger]

Okay, so the line is "further". What does that look like, in terms of posters I am allowed to make under the protections of free speech?
Am I allowed to put Hillary's face on a poster saying "you can vote by taking a long walk off a short pier"?
Her face, plus the slogan, plus a line at the bottom saying "paid for by Hillary for President campaign"?

Or do I need to change my slogan to be something that people might legitimately believe, like "the polling station is at [address that is actually a landfill]?"

The legal standard used in many of these types of cases comes down to the concept of a reasonable person.

 

[Houseman]

The legal standard used in many of these types of cases comes down to the concept of a reasonable person.

Are constitutional matters like freedom of expression even allowed to be subject to what a reasonable person thinks?

 

[Avnger]

Are constitutional matters like freedom of expression even allowed to be subject to what a reasonable person thinks?

Yes. Read the link.....

Reasonable person - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Worgen]

Are constitutional matters like freedom of expression even allowed to be subject to what a reasonable person thinks?

They kind of have to be. I mean you can't claim religious exemption to murder 3 people with blue eyes since they are totally of the devil you guys. Despite the separation of church and state, which isn't in the constitution but tends to be read from the first amendment.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Are constitutional matters like freedom of expression even allowed to be subject to what a reasonable person thinks?

Yes, when relevant.

 

[Houseman]

Yes. Read the link.....

Reasonable person - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Neat, thanks.

So, is the standard here "whether or not an ad will fool a reasonable person"?

On the other hand, people get fooled by satire sites like The Onion and Babylon Bee all the time. There's a whole subreddit about it.

 

[Avnger]

Neat, thanks.

So, is the standard here "whether or not an ad will fool a reasonable person"?

On the other hand, people get fooled by satire sites like The Onion and Babylon Bee all the time. There's a whole subreddit about it.

All of your questions are answered by the linked page.

So, is the standard here "whether or not an ad will fool a reasonable person"?

Yes.

On the other hand, people get fooled by satire sites like The Onion and Babylon Bee all the time. There's a whole subreddit about it.

Entirely irrelevant.

As a legal fiction,[3] the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept in some criminal cases, especially in regard to the partial defence of provocation.[7] The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[8][9] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[10][11] The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.

Reasonable person - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Houseman]

snip

I don't see how it's irrelevant that people get fooled by satire sites all the time, nor do I see how my concerns are addressed by the Wikipedia entry for "Reasonable Person". Can you explain how, in your own words?

In the meantime, I'll try to take a guess at what you're getting at.

The "reasonable person" should look into the source of headlines and confirm whether or not it's from a satire site, and thus, he shouldn't be fooled, and thus, The Onion should not be doing anything unlawful.

So shouldn't the reasonable person know or look into the laws and voting procedures, and thus, shouldn't be fooled by a fake ad saying that he can vote by text? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, after all.

 

[Kwak]

The legal standard used in many of these types of cases comes down to the concept of a reasonable person.

Well that's obviously irrelevant to Houseman, given his mission to take all arguments to breaking point so he can then accuse you of hypocrisy and inconsistent logic.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Chapter 94: Houseman stumbles on the concept of Reasonable Person; doesn't quite get it.

 

[Houseman]

given his mission to take all arguments to breaking point

You say that like it's a bad thing