zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. bitwiz+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-11-03 22:13:55
That's the rubric courts and legislatures in the USA have used.

It is, in general, really really difficult to pass speech laws in the USA because of that pesky First Amendment -- even if they're documentation of a crime. Famously, Joshua Moon of Kiwi Farms gleefully hosted the footage from the Christchurch shooting even when the actual Kiwis demanded its removal.

But if you can argue that procurement or distribution of the original material perpetuates the original crime, that is, if it constitutes criminal activity beyond speech -- then you can justify criminalizing such procurement or distribution. It's flimsy (and that makes it prone to potentially being overturned by some madlad Supreme Court in the future with zero fucks to give about the social blowbacks), but it does the job.

In other countries it's easy to pass laws banning speech based on its potential for ill social effects. Nazi propaganda and lolicon manga are criminalized in other countries, but still legal in the USA because they're victimless.

If this makes you wonder whether it's time to re-evaluate the First Amendment -- yes. Yes, it is.

replies(1): >>waterh+7q
2. waterh+7q[view] [source] 2022-11-04 00:48:14
>>bitwiz+(OP)
I'm in favor of the First Amendment remaining at least this strong. None of the above things strike me as nearly as dangerous as "the ruling party being able to suppress criticism and opposition by claiming that their opponents' words have potential for ill social effects".
[go to top]