-----Original Message----- From: Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2021 05:13 To: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> Subject: Re: Parler
Hi,
Your distinction sounds specious. The Courts have consistently that the 1st amendment protects free speech from government retaliation in many instances. It is not just prior restraint.
Best,
Roderick.
________________________________
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 3:11 AM To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Parler
The first amendment deals with the government passing laws restricting freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with to whom AWS chooses to sell their services. It is also not absolute (fire, crowded theater, etc.)
You are correct and incorrect. The First Amendment prohibits the Government from passing laws which constitute "prior restraint". It does nothing with respect to anyone other then the "Government" and its agents.
You are also incorrect. Freedom of Speech is Absolute. There is no prior restraint which precludes you from "(fire, crowded theatre, etc.)" whatever that means. That does not mean that speech does not have "consequences". The first amendment only protects against prior restraint, it does not protect against the suffering of consequences. And of course "consequences" come AFTER the speech, not BEFORE the speech.
Furthermore your "(fire, crowded theater, etc.)" (whatever the hell
means) cannot, as a matter of fact, possibly justify any action taken prior to the so-called speech having been made as that would be an assumption of fact not in evidence (also known as a hypothetical question) and the courts do not rule on hypotheticals. If you do not understand the difference then perhaps you should be sentenced to death since you have a hand, and having a hand it could hold a gun, and since it could hold a gun, you could also murder someone. So therefore you should be put to death now as "prior restraint" to prevent you from committing murder.
I am neither a lawyer nor a yankee doodle and I know these facts to be self-evident.
-- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; and the charge laid against the shouter was "reckless disregard for human life resulting in culpable homocide" and the elements of that offence being proved, was dismissed on the basis that the "speech" was protected by the first amendment? -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision. that paved
with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
In article <35226213b6fcdc4a9c94f0bf3047201c@mail.dessus.com> you write:
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ...
Probably none. That metaphor was used by Justice Holmes in a now-discredited Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., which was actually about handing out anti-draft leaflets during WW I. It was overwrought then and has never been a useful guide to free speech law. This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. R's, John
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ...
This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech. On 1/11/2021 6:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ... This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions.
Anne
-- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer 816-256-5446|Direct Looking for something? Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions. On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:25 PM Joe Loiacono <jloiacon@gmail.com> wrote:
Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech.
I'm not sure what you mean here. One can advocate for or against "free speech" and whatever it may ultimately include or not include without having to invoke a specific United States legal framework which doesn't apply in many (most) contexts. Freedom of speech as a right of humankind has existed as a concept since long before the US did, the US merely enshrined in its constitution that the government should generally not infringe on it, with very limited circumstances in which it may do so. This is, in my opinion and that of others, a good thing. Where those lines are to be drawn is largely up to the courts, and is often the subject of debate among both jurists and laypersons. I guess my overall point here is this: there's no reason you can't say "free speech is an important right that we must protect" without invoking any specific legal doctrine, if that's what you believe. That statement can easily apply to any government agency, private corporation, public corporation, or individual citizen, and be broadly relevant. Once you invoke the first amendment, you're now limiting the context of your advocacy. On 1/11/2021 6:16 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ... This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230. That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions.
Anne
----- On Jan 11, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Joe Loiacono jloiacon@gmail.com wrote: Hi,
Only if you believe censorship has nothing to do with free speech.
As Anne was trying to point out, the 1st Amendment protects you from the Government, and more specifically, Congress: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Your 1st Amendment rights do not include the right to put your signs in your neighbor's yard, and by extension, to host your website on your neighbor's (or Amazon's) private infrastructure. This does not mean that I agree with Amazon's decision. There are a lot of implications to this. Thanks, Sabri Who now waits for another donotpay.com "confirmation". And will then, yet again, complain to their support, Mailgun, and AWS.
Maybe if one puts a sign/flyer up in their front yard opposing what their belief is and argues "free speech" lol, totally joking... -Joe On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:18 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> wrote:
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ...
This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions.
Anne
-- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
At what point does the person from ISC yell this is not nanog related, like he did to me? From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+bkain1=ford.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Joe Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 6:32 PM To: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com> Cc: Eric Dugas via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: shouting draft resisters, Parler Maybe if one puts a sign/flyer up in their front yard opposing what their belief is and argues "free speech" lol, totally joking... -Joe On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:18 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell@isipp.com<mailto:amitchell@isipp.com>> wrote:
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ...
This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
That's because people continue to believe that this has something to do with the 1st Amendment, which of course it does not. But you can't disabuse people of their poorly informed notions. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre fire where 602 people died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_Theatre_fire https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-theater-blaze-killed-hundreds-for... Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 5:56 PM John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
In article <35226213b6fcdc4a9c94f0bf3047201c@mail.dessus.com> you write:
That would make me wonder how many cases there have been of someone "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" where there was no fire and at least one person died as a result; ...
Probably none. That metaphor was used by Justice Holmes in a now-discredited Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., which was actually about handing out anti-draft leaflets during WW I. It was overwrought then and has never been a useful guide to free speech law.
This seems a wee bit distant from Parler or TOS or Sec 230.
R's, John
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre fire where 602 people died.
Not at all. The actual quote is The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The Iroquois fire was unfortunately all too real. As soon as the US entered WW I the first amendment basically went out the window with the Espionage Act. Schenck was part of that. R's, John
Hi, On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 8:23 PM John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I think it is reasonably clear this was a reference to the Iroquois Theatre fire where 602 people died.
Not at all. The actual quote is
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
The Iroquois fire was unfortunately all too real.
As you can see by looking at your own quote, there is nothing about whether or not there actually is smoke or is a fire in the "crowded theater". Certainly the operators, owners, and builders of the Iroquois Theater all claimed that the exists were more than adequate and it was entirely the fault of the people who died from being crushed/trampled because they should have remained calm. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com
As soon as the US entered WW I the first amendment basically went out the window with the Espionage Act. Schenck was part of that.
R's, John
participants (10)
-
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. -
Donald Eastlake -
Joe -
Joe Loiacono -
John Levine -
John R. Levine
-
Kain, Becki (.) -
Keith Medcalf -
Matt Harris -
Sabri Berisha