zlacker

> you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence

Actually, in the U.S., you literally have that specific constitutional right.

The First Amendment protects "spouting off in the public square without consequence" via the Freedoms of Assembly (the right to gather), Speech (say what you like without consequence), Religion (believe what you like), and the right to petition the government.

Loud complaining or even vague and non-specific threats (such as "I'll make you pay for this!") are actually protected by the First Amendment.

There are very rare and limited exceptions, such as "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

>>throwa+(OP)
Let's be clear here. You have the right to spout off in the public square without government consequences. Others, including Meta itself, are still free to hold you accountable for what you say.

>>10000t+01
The next sentence: "What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law", so governmental consequences is what the OP was referring to.

It seems like the OP might have been conflating free speech with admissions of guilt for other crimes, but "spouting off" is not, and must never be, a crime.

>>throwa+(OP)
If “spouting off” includes incriminating yourself then there’s nothing stopping law enforcement from using what you say in the public square as evidence in court. Thus, if IG is a public square, then scraping IG is also fair game for producing suspects.

>>spunke+E1
Of course, if you incriminate yourself while spouting off (or while engaged in any other activity, like writing in your diary), then you are producing evidence of a different crime, but spouting off is not a crime in itself.

>>throwa+P2
literally what I wrote, no? "you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence. What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law."

like I can say what I want, but if I say "I DID CRIMES" then guess what.. that could be used as evidence that I DID CRIMES

>>throwa+g1
> It seems like the OP might have been conflating free speech with admissions of guilt for other crimes

By my reading, it wasn’t OP who did this conflating.

>>steveB+N3
"Spouting off" is an idiom that means, essentially, "angrily complaining". It does not mean publicly confessing to a crime.

>>lcnPyl+h4
>>> you do not have a constitutional right to spouting off in the public square without consequence. What you say publicly can & will be used against you in the court of law.

"spouting off..used against you in a court of law"

But, even if the OP didn't intend for these two to be tied together in this way, then a very strong constitutional right still exists for spouting off, so whether conflation occurred or not is moot.

>>throwa+e5
> In NYC for example, there's been a large uptick in teen shootings, many adjacent to schools, and a lot of it involves the idiots posting on social media before & after. (emphasis mine)

“Spouting off” is an idiom that can also mean “speaking without a filter” and that’s what OP meant in this case.

>>steveB+N3
Not sure if you all read the article, but the controversy IS NOT about people confessing to crimes on Facebook. It is people who might have friends (who they dont have befriended on Facebook) and thus might be guilty by association and suddenly all the mights turn into a Dossier of a potential criminal. Some magic black box decides if you did crimes or not.

>>10000t+01
The firm was also creating fake profiles on FB. It isnt clear if "what you say" even came from you!

>>throwa+(OP)
Time, place, and manner restrictions - even very intense ones - have been found constitutional. US v O'Brien has never been overturned. The government was able to restrict protest they didn't like with the thinnest of veneers of compelling government interest.