Active Now

Malizz
Randy D
Shuhak
Discussion » Questions » answerMug » Would your TOS hold up in front of SCOTUS? Do your TOS override Freedom of Speech?
Benedict Arnold

Would your TOS hold up in front of SCOTUS? Do your TOS override Freedom of Speech?

You might want to check "This field is hidden and only visible to you and admins:"  *cough*

Posted - May 17, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 7939
    *cough* yawn *cough*

    https://answermug.com/faq/view/24/1/3/0/do-freedom-of-speech-rights-apply-here 
      May 17, 2019 11:09 PM MDT
    1

  • 46117
    He seems to get a lot of this type of response.
      May 17, 2019 11:12 PM MDT
    1

  • You can legally call people bad names. 
      May 19, 2019 10:59 AM MDT
    1

  • 6098
    Perhaps so but that is not pretty nor pleasant. 
      May 19, 2019 11:21 AM MDT
    1

  • Who cares what is pretty or pleasant ?  Subjective feelings and tastes are irrelevant.
      May 19, 2019 1:37 PM MDT
    0

  • 7939
    Yes and no. There's some good examples of when that isn't true starting on page six of this doc: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

    Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is a really good example. He used the phrase "You are a God-damned racketeer" and called someone "a damned Fascist." NH law says it's illegal to call anyone "by an offensive or derisive name" while they're in a public space. He was charged and fined. He appealed saying it violated his First Amendment rights. It went to the NH Supreme Court who basically told Chaplinsky no dice. There are lots of others.

    So, sure, there are times a person can legally get away with it and times they cannot. 
      May 19, 2019 1:09 PM MDT
    1

  • That's a tragedy.   New Hampshire needs to drip the lice free or die with their BS.

    He should have taken to the real supreme court.  Monday that would have upheld.  Clear violation of rights.
      May 19, 2019 1:36 PM MDT
    0

  • 7939
    I don't think so. The amendment excludes "fighting words." That was the sole purpose of the man's words. If you can explain how his words were anything but "fighting words," I'd love to hear it. 
      May 19, 2019 1:50 PM MDT
    0

  • 6098
    Sorry not familiar with such abbreviations. 
      May 18, 2019 5:43 AM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    not sure
      May 18, 2019 4:47 PM MDT
    0

  • Gawd, I want to know who this was, lol. 
      May 18, 2019 8:11 PM MDT
    1

  • 7939
    It was Wakko.
      May 18, 2019 9:13 PM MDT
    1

  • Ahhhh, I never got to know him well but I probably should have figured that one out. I thought it was a drive by lol.

      May 18, 2019 9:20 PM MDT
    2

  • Yes, yes it would. Private property.

    Though there is a very legit debate that social media has made itself so pervasive and ingrained in the public dialogue that they should not be allowed to put limits on speech the same way a property owner could.

    I used to be in the , their place, their rules camp. I have since changed opinion.  I agree social.media gas became the new public square and shouldn't be able to.limit speech any more.
      May 19, 2019 11:04 AM MDT
    0