Free Speech

Free Speech means a lot of different things in different contexts, but I’m specifically here referring to the First Amendment of the constitution of the US. It limits _what governments_ can limit. You cannot speech in an untruthful way (in person, published, whatever) that a reasonable person would believe that is damaging to another person. That’s slander or libel or whatever. You cannot lie under oath; that’s perjury. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. You cannot make criminal threats (complicated to explain, but this is not a You Know It When You See It situation — it is pretty well defined),

Also, you _used_ to not be able to speech in a way that advocated for the use of violence to achieve political ends. That changed roughly a hundred years ago, so you could, but not in an imminent, lawless way.

I’ve been talking everyone’s ears off lately, why isn’t anyone pointing this out?

People are pointing this out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/14/trump-brandenburg-impeachment-first-amendment/

That is from three days ago. I will look for more.

This does not just apply to POTUS — this applies generally. That kind of speech is not protected.

Josh Hawley’s book — like a lot of conservative rhetoric right now — imagines a world in which conservative speech should be protected completely, even in private marketplaces like social media, and advocate for governmental regulation / oversight / enforcement to limit the ability of social media to moderate conservative speech. While many people have resorted to the Very Powerful Argument of, hey, gay wedding cakes, it is important to remember that speech which advocates for violence in an imminent, lawless way is not now and never has been protected speech.

The government in some form may well step in to do something about conservative speech, but it is more likely to be the opposite of what the hotheads hope for.

ETA:

By comparison, Bloomberg’s entry on this is much, much worse:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-14/is-trump-s-jan-6-rally-speech-protected-by-the-first-amendment

Politico’s entry is not relevant to non-Presidents:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/13/trump-impeachment-incitement-free-speech-458884

But it is an interesting perspective.

The NYT take is horrifying:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/opinion/trump-trial-incitement.html

This acts like Trump _wrote_ something, that people read while sipping coffee. That’s not what happened. Trump gave that speech _in front of a mob_. And focusing on the contents of the remarks delivered on Jan 6 completely misses the context of the previous tweets which got that mob there in the first place.

I get that the author is writing because of concerns that a precedent set here might wind up having sweeping, negative consequences for other people who are of color, have fewer resources and way less power. That’s worth thinking about generally, but it is a shitty reason in general, and places quite well into the hands of Josh Hawley and co, and will lead to much more specific and in detail persecution of people of color who lack in resources and power.

Also: “In performing its constitutional role in impeachment, Congress should take special care not to alter the constitutional standard for incitement.” There were shorter and much less damaging ways to get to that point, and also, that was never a risk in the first place.

What the hell, NYT?

Also, if you think I am being unfair, why don’t you waste your time reading this:

https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/pb-daily/paths-to-forgiveness-a-conversation-with-suzanne-nossel

She’s here to complain about absolutely everything and make sure no one can do anything to fix it. Which, fine, but does not need to be listened to.

ETA: Also, if your first examples of problematic derogatory memes online are ok boomer and karen, there’s a very real problem and it is not the people doing the ok boomer and karen memes.

How to Cover Vaccine Deployment

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/huge-response-to-a-mass-covid-19-vaccination-site-in-sequim-is-likely-preview-of-whats-to-come/

I would just leave this here, but I’ve been chatting with people and the point is apparently not as obvious as I had thought.

If you make it, they will come (sorry, field of dreams, better mousetrap, etc.). A covid vaccine at this point, is like the most desirable thing imaginable. I was overjoyed to realize that obesity was listed on the comorbidity list, because it means I get to be slightly earlier in the prioritization queue. My MIL’s strategy at one point to try to get the vaccine involved getting in line in the middle of the night, with a sleeping bag, a thermos of tea, some energy bars and a bag-lined bucket in the back. (In the event, there was no vaccine and the cops cleared them all out after a few hours. Adventures in The Villages! After the initial clearout, some went to a parking lot at a nearbyCracker Barrel, As One Does.) (She did eventually get a vaccination, but on another day, without having to camp out in her car.)

Right now, Q followers such as the one covered in the NYT profile of Valerie Gilbert, are pushing anti-vaccination articles produced by sources such as Breitbart and the Epoch Times. Meanwhile, regular news sources are talking about supply chain woes, lies pushed by Azar and others about how much might be available, etc. It’s all depressing. It doesn’t have to be. There is a lot of human interest in asking people about their strategy for surviving in a line of cars for hours to get a vaccine (seriously, ask about that bag-lined bucket). The right way to counter claims that ER nurses and firefighters are refusing the vaccine is not to apply pressure — that just leads to I Will Resist nonsense from people like Gilbert. (If only the people concerned with controlling their bodies re: vaccines were as concerned with supporting women’s rights to control their bodies more generally.)

The right way is :

Please! Refuse Your Vaccine! I’m in line behind you, and I want mine sooner.