If you’re going to downvote, please be so kind leave a tip or a piece of advice so that I can avoid repeating in the future whatever mistake you think I am making. Tsuyoku Naritai, after all.
When someone expands an argument from a comment thread into its own post, I expect them to distill the crux of the matter into something that would be interesting to read even if one wasn’t involved in the original argument. (Ideally, I expect such a post to clearly highlight something interesting, in the LW sense, about the issue or about rationality.) This post doesn’t do that for me.
Regarding formatting, I’ve experienced that bug sometimes. Did you write the post in some other program, then copy and paste into the editor, or did you write it in the post editor?
No debate about freedom of speech is complete without citation to actual law. (I’m an American lawyer, so this is American law)
Brandenburg v. OH—not much discussion, but this is the source of the modern rule allowing prohibition of “imminent lawless action,” which is much more speech protective than “clear and present danger”
American Booksellers Assoc. v. Hudson—rejection of anti-pornography statute (supported by Catherine MacKinnon) on the basis that freedom of speech doesn’t authorize picking a side. Fairly detailed discussion of the trade-offs in the freedom of speech context.
Europe has picked a different balance on this issue (generally, much less speech protective).
If you’re going to downvote, please be so kind leave a tip or a piece of advice so that I can avoid repeating in the future whatever mistake you think I am making. Tsuyoku Naritai, after all.
When someone expands an argument from a comment thread into its own post, I expect them to distill the crux of the matter into something that would be interesting to read even if one wasn’t involved in the original argument. (Ideally, I expect such a post to clearly highlight something interesting, in the LW sense, about the issue or about rationality.) This post doesn’t do that for me.
I have allways been terrible at anticipating my fellow lesswongers’ reactions to my pots. For good or bad, I always get surprised.
The article goes back to draft, for now.
Regarding formatting, I’ve experienced that bug sometimes. Did you write the post in some other program, then copy and paste into the editor, or did you write it in the post editor?
No debate about freedom of speech is complete without citation to actual law. (I’m an American lawyer, so this is American law)
Brandenburg v. OH—not much discussion, but this is the source of the modern rule allowing prohibition of “imminent lawless action,” which is much more speech protective than “clear and present danger”
American Booksellers Assoc. v. Hudson—rejection of anti-pornography statute (supported by Catherine MacKinnon) on the basis that freedom of speech doesn’t authorize picking a side. Fairly detailed discussion of the trade-offs in the freedom of speech context.
Europe has picked a different balance on this issue (generally, much less speech protective).