(04-02-2024 05:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, dipshit -- the question is *if* [all these things happen] *can* the government intervene in any fashion, even to the extreme point of declaring an emergency.

Once again with your incessant need to control the conversation... limiting it to what YOU think it should be about.....

First as I have said... it is self-evident that the government has the power to declare national emergencies. That was addressed in my first posts on the issue regarding 'time of war'. The question then becomes, is 'this' sufficient for that declaration... and almost no information is given to reach a conclusion.

So you've just brought up this meaningless drivel in an attempt to feed your fragile ego.

Quote:My issue is/was 'given [my hypos], can/should the government intervene in a similar fashion.

Here's the thing, Tanq... I can explain this to you again, but I can't understand it for you. That's on you.... and your arrogance and insistence on controlling this conversation is preventing you from understanding.... because I made it clear...

Post 3712... I mentioned that to me, moderation, other than illegal content was inappropriate.

Implicit in that is that moderation of illegal content is NOT inappropriate.

You came back in post 3715 saying 'if that is the case, then troop movement disclosure during a time of war can't be moderated'.

I said in post 3719 that my 'illegal content' comment addressed that... because (and now I am paraphrasing, but I said all of this) that regulating disclosing troop movement during a time of war IS a power that the government has exerted... that is mostly moot today because of satellites, but should they deem it necessary, they have the power under emergency powers to do so.... to render it 'illegal' and thus subject to moderation.

Now to the question of 'should'... which I've also sort of addressed that. Troop movements? Short of say 'Seal Team 6' which I addressed or some other small group that might not be easily detected by satellites... 'probably' not. I say 'probably' because you've given no specifics.... but the whole premise behind the word 'disclosing' is that this is a secret... which implies a reason for it to be secretive.

Kids jumping out of windows? Kids killing themselves based on tiktok dares? That too depends on a whole lot of factors not in evidence.... and is far-fetched to begin with. In addition, I think it obvious that if someone is encouraging people to do things that they know or should know will bring harm to someone else, I'm pretty sure those can become 'crimes' of a sort.... and thus exceptions to the protections. I certainly don't know under which statutes they might fall... reckless endangerment?? Negligence? That's for people like you.

And if such crimes don't exist, then perhaps the government should look into writing such legislation. That is their job and they are allowed to regulate free speech (fire in a crowded theatre) if (according to the SCOTUS) they can demonstrate a compelling public interest and that this is the 'least restrictive' means of doing so.

So all these things you're fixated on, I've consistently addressed from my first post on this issue #3712.

Quote:Hint: Think about the main reason for *any* exceptions for the 1st Amendment. Aside from those based on the Constitutional provision for copyright, and the ones for trademark, the vast majority have embedded in them a rationale based on a concept. It starts with presence of something that the speech in question threatens. It starts with the letters "dan" and ends with "er".

That is -- the concept is *already* embedded in 1A issues. From the get go. So squawk some more gobbledygook.

Lol... says the guy pulling predicates out of his ass and passing them off as something MORE than just his opinion. I began with 'to me'... meaning this is my opinion... and you disagreeing doesn't make me wrong.

The concepts embedded in exceptions to the BOR are 'compelling state interest'.... which is REALLY what drives the court and not 'danger'... but also that the proposed remedy reflects the 'least restrictive' means of advancing that interest.

Now of course, 'danger' (which is already referenced by the number of deaths noted in each instance and example) is PART of determining the existence of a compelling state interest... but your comment implied that the mere presence of it creates that interest... and that is a demonstrable falsehood.

The dumb thing about this part of the conversation is that this is all tied up in poor hypotheticals... both hers and yours. While I reserve my opinion on why YOU made such a ridiculous hypothetical, I have a suspicion that hers could have been an intentional attempt to do precisely what you have just done... and that is to blur the lines between 'danger' and 'compelling interest'.

If we get to the point where we have declared a state of national emergency because of an epidemic of kids jumping out of windows (her hypothetical, with no numerical construct) such that 1st amendment rights can be infringed, the already articulated argument that 50,000 gun deaths per year similarly creates a sufficient national emergency/epidemic to infringe 2nd amendment rights I am convinced would not be far behind... and a precedent set.

You don't have to share my skepticism and are more than free to disagree with my opinion, but you have stated absolutely nothing upon which to base that disagreement.

I find it amusing that you so often accuse me of proclaiming myself an expert because I have an opinion that I can and do reasonably support while you assert your non-existent authority to dismiss it out of hand.