https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m74zazYPwkY
Absolutely fascinating youtube video about how oscillation develops in traffic systems due to resonances in interactions between vehicles and their attempts to manage speed. It isn't just a matter of overdamping or underdamping your speed, but finding ways to mitigate interactions with the vehicle in front of you -- so presumably just choosing a speed and going that speed without trying to maintain a distance with the car in front of you is enough to break the oscillation. You might go "Ok, but what if you're about to hit the car in front of you?" but the answer is to set your cruise control to be slightly slower than the car in front of you, so the gap in front of you grows over time and you maintain the same speed without worrying about stopping. It doesn't take a major speed difference to pull it off. Then the people behind you are no longer interacting with the car in front of you.
Absolutely fascinating youtube video about how oscillation develops in traffic systems due to resonances in interactions between vehicles and their attempts to manage speed. It isn't just a matter of overdamping or underdamping your speed, but finding ways to mitigate interactions with the vehicle in front of you -- so presumably just choosing a speed and going that speed without trying to maintain a distance with the car in front of you is enough to break the oscillation. You might go "Ok, but what if you're about to hit the car in front of you?" but the answer is to set your cruise control to be slightly slower than the car in front of you, so the gap in front of you grows over time and you maintain the same speed without worrying about stopping. It doesn't take a major speed difference to pull it off. Then the people behind you are no longer interacting with the car in front of you.
You are correct, of course. But you have to admit, it's an entertaining thought experiment that helps show viscerally how absurd the attempt to connect the two is.
A really funny thing is when people say something the police do is a "War Crime".
Nothing the police do during standard police operations is a war crime, because the rules of war do not apply to police. That includes laws about chemical weapons in war, but also many other laws.
It's like taking an NHL rulebook and trying to apply it to a soccer game. Unless you're only focusing on a few very narrow rules, it just isn't something that follows. In a soccer game the rule saying you need to be wearing skates is absurd. The rule saying you need to wear hockey pads is absurd. The rule saying you need to have a hockey stick is absurd.
Similarly, the rules of war and the rules of policing are quite different and absurd to apply to one another.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably being a criminal who isn't wearing a criminal uniform is a war crime. You need to wear a domino mask and a striped suit to identify yourself as a criminal for the police, and if you do not wear your criminal uniform, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must have a criminal boss like a video game. If you are a criminal and you do not have a criminal boss, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must openly carry your firearm. If you are a criminal and you do not openly carry your firearm then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, you must announce your intention to engage with police in accordance with international law. If you do not declare war then you are no longer protected by the law.
There's other differences too. Police use hollow point bullets because they want the bullets not to harm bystanders, but militaries use full metal jacket bullets because they want the wounds from bullets to be as humane as bullet wounds can get.
Obviously non-lethal chemical weapons like tear gas or pepper spray are allowed for police, but not for militaries.
Criminals who are legally engaging in war and thus protected by the laws of war can surrender and expect certain rights that would not apply to normal criminals.
Police who are legally engaging in war and thus are protected by the laws of war can surrended and expect certain rights from the criminals, or the criminals may be acting unlawfully.
Criminals would be considered to be acting unlawfully under the laws of war when they commit crimes against civilians, allowing punishment potentially up to death.
A gang must have designated medics with official markings, and rival gangs or police cannot harm them.
If you shoplift a pack of gum from a 7-11, then you are potentially a war criminal, and may face summary execution.
Hospitals treating criminals must be clearly marked and safe from police raids.
If a gang simply declares a ceasefire, every captured gang member would have to be released, even if they murdered dozens of people.
Gang members would be allowed to use machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, fighter jets, up to and including nuclear bombs, but not brass knuckles.
Both criminals and police would only be allowed to use proportionate force to the military value of a target.
It is expected and written into the law that both the criminals and the police will kill each other, and there is nothing illegal about lawfully killing one another. In fact, if you kill a lot of police or a lot of criminals, your governing authority may give you a medal.
A police baton is arguably not allowed and may represent a war crime. The police must shoot to kill instead.
Criminals who loot and pillage are guilty of a crime under military law.
Criminals would need legitimate funding sources, and to have clear requisitions processes from their gang.
And remember, the punishment for many war crimes is death.
Maybe we shouldn't keep talking about war crimes in this context. That is a silly place.
With one caveat: police can be responsible for war crimes under such laws if they are acting as government agents in a wartime situation in ways that end up under the jurisdiction of such laws -- but the above would all start to apply for both sides.
In other news, a city of 20 million people disappeared off the map today as activists won a victory in court requiring it to uphold military law. The judge sentenced every person in the city to be an unlawful combatant and sentenced them to death, followed by himself.
The military took over the city which was a violation of the third amendment, but not military law.
Nothing the police do during standard police operations is a war crime, because the rules of war do not apply to police. That includes laws about chemical weapons in war, but also many other laws.
It's like taking an NHL rulebook and trying to apply it to a soccer game. Unless you're only focusing on a few very narrow rules, it just isn't something that follows. In a soccer game the rule saying you need to be wearing skates is absurd. The rule saying you need to wear hockey pads is absurd. The rule saying you need to have a hockey stick is absurd.
Similarly, the rules of war and the rules of policing are quite different and absurd to apply to one another.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably being a criminal who isn't wearing a criminal uniform is a war crime. You need to wear a domino mask and a striped suit to identify yourself as a criminal for the police, and if you do not wear your criminal uniform, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must have a criminal boss like a video game. If you are a criminal and you do not have a criminal boss, then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, then you must openly carry your firearm. If you are a criminal and you do not openly carry your firearm then you are no longer protected by the law.
If we go by what is a war crime, then arguably if you are a criminal, you must announce your intention to engage with police in accordance with international law. If you do not declare war then you are no longer protected by the law.
There's other differences too. Police use hollow point bullets because they want the bullets not to harm bystanders, but militaries use full metal jacket bullets because they want the wounds from bullets to be as humane as bullet wounds can get.
Obviously non-lethal chemical weapons like tear gas or pepper spray are allowed for police, but not for militaries.
Criminals who are legally engaging in war and thus protected by the laws of war can surrender and expect certain rights that would not apply to normal criminals.
Police who are legally engaging in war and thus are protected by the laws of war can surrended and expect certain rights from the criminals, or the criminals may be acting unlawfully.
Criminals would be considered to be acting unlawfully under the laws of war when they commit crimes against civilians, allowing punishment potentially up to death.
A gang must have designated medics with official markings, and rival gangs or police cannot harm them.
If you shoplift a pack of gum from a 7-11, then you are potentially a war criminal, and may face summary execution.
Hospitals treating criminals must be clearly marked and safe from police raids.
If a gang simply declares a ceasefire, every captured gang member would have to be released, even if they murdered dozens of people.
Gang members would be allowed to use machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, fighter jets, up to and including nuclear bombs, but not brass knuckles.
Both criminals and police would only be allowed to use proportionate force to the military value of a target.
It is expected and written into the law that both the criminals and the police will kill each other, and there is nothing illegal about lawfully killing one another. In fact, if you kill a lot of police or a lot of criminals, your governing authority may give you a medal.
A police baton is arguably not allowed and may represent a war crime. The police must shoot to kill instead.
Criminals who loot and pillage are guilty of a crime under military law.
Criminals would need legitimate funding sources, and to have clear requisitions processes from their gang.
And remember, the punishment for many war crimes is death.
Maybe we shouldn't keep talking about war crimes in this context. That is a silly place.
With one caveat: police can be responsible for war crimes under such laws if they are acting as government agents in a wartime situation in ways that end up under the jurisdiction of such laws -- but the above would all start to apply for both sides.
In other news, a city of 20 million people disappeared off the map today as activists won a victory in court requiring it to uphold military law. The judge sentenced every person in the city to be an unlawful combatant and sentenced them to death, followed by himself.
The military took over the city which was a violation of the third amendment, but not military law.
Followed immediately by Nuremberg trials for Palestines leadership.
"Oh shit! What do you mean there are laws to war?"
"Oh shit! What do you mean there are laws to war?"
Too much writing lol
If we're being honest, absolutely everyone is entitled to say bad things about Charlie Kirk.
Honestly, his videos weren't my pot of tea. He always struck me as kind of a dick, making a big show of going on college campuses and arguing with dumb college kids. I know a lot of people have told me he was the nicest guy you'd ever meet but that wasn't my impression based solely on the media presence.
And you know what? No one's going to have a single problem with anything I said above. I didn't celebrate his death, I didn't justify his death, I didn't willfully lie about the circumstances to make my narrative look better, and I certainly didn't say who needs to be murdered next.
That's the problem with modernists. They can only see in black and white. They don't have a choice but to flatten complexity. That's why Charlie Kirk is dead, because they could only see disagreement as the exact same thing as calls for genocide, I know that he is dead and they are getting pushed back for calling for the deaths of more people they can only see mild criticism of the man and hysterical celebration of his death as the exact same thing because murder must be justified in the former case, and absolutely zero consequences must be justified in the latter.
I think a lot of people have been confused as to why over last week or so they've seen a lot of posts from me working through the implications of things like Jimmy Kimmels show being canceled or the consequences have come about for the people who were celebrating the political assassination and calling for more. It's because the world isn't digital, and the answers aren't simple or permanent. Even Buddhist monks invented Kung Fu to protect their temples.
The justification for murdering Kirk was essentially that by saying mean words he was literally Mass murdering people. Now these mean words tended to be things like "men and women are different" or "you shouldn't hire people solely on the basis of race because otherwise you're going to get people who aren't very good at their jobs because you hide them based on race," which has to be flattened because otherwise you look stupid. Meanwhile, people who are cheering for the political assassination, and calling for more political assassinations, they are saying that they're free speech is being violated for what they are doing but the reality is we're not talking about it calling Charlie a dick, we're talking about cheering for his murder and calling for more murders.
All these people pleading free speech sure seem to have different standards for themselves than others because every one of the Free speech warriors was on top of the "disinformation and misinformation must be regulated" train, and now regulating disinformation is misinformation caused someone to lose their job and instead of celebrating they're acting as if it was a travesty.
Honestly, his videos weren't my pot of tea. He always struck me as kind of a dick, making a big show of going on college campuses and arguing with dumb college kids. I know a lot of people have told me he was the nicest guy you'd ever meet but that wasn't my impression based solely on the media presence.
And you know what? No one's going to have a single problem with anything I said above. I didn't celebrate his death, I didn't justify his death, I didn't willfully lie about the circumstances to make my narrative look better, and I certainly didn't say who needs to be murdered next.
That's the problem with modernists. They can only see in black and white. They don't have a choice but to flatten complexity. That's why Charlie Kirk is dead, because they could only see disagreement as the exact same thing as calls for genocide, I know that he is dead and they are getting pushed back for calling for the deaths of more people they can only see mild criticism of the man and hysterical celebration of his death as the exact same thing because murder must be justified in the former case, and absolutely zero consequences must be justified in the latter.
I think a lot of people have been confused as to why over last week or so they've seen a lot of posts from me working through the implications of things like Jimmy Kimmels show being canceled or the consequences have come about for the people who were celebrating the political assassination and calling for more. It's because the world isn't digital, and the answers aren't simple or permanent. Even Buddhist monks invented Kung Fu to protect their temples.
The justification for murdering Kirk was essentially that by saying mean words he was literally Mass murdering people. Now these mean words tended to be things like "men and women are different" or "you shouldn't hire people solely on the basis of race because otherwise you're going to get people who aren't very good at their jobs because you hide them based on race," which has to be flattened because otherwise you look stupid. Meanwhile, people who are cheering for the political assassination, and calling for more political assassinations, they are saying that they're free speech is being violated for what they are doing but the reality is we're not talking about it calling Charlie a dick, we're talking about cheering for his murder and calling for more murders.
All these people pleading free speech sure seem to have different standards for themselves than others because every one of the Free speech warriors was on top of the "disinformation and misinformation must be regulated" train, and now regulating disinformation is misinformation caused someone to lose their job and instead of celebrating they're acting as if it was a travesty.
It's kind of interesting, I was in a discussion relating to this a day or two ago. The person I was discussing with make the claim that the constitution is perfect and all the founding fathers agreed on how different parts of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted, and so I just put the facts on the table of exactly how the founding fathers were acting immediately after founding.
It seems a lot of people don't know how laws or sausages are made.
It seems a lot of people don't know how laws or sausages are made.
It's humorous that not only did their "allies" in big business let them loose, their "allies" protecting them in government are too.
"Just imagine if the roles were reversed" wasn't a moral warning, it was a practical one. Treat others the way you would have others treat you, because at some point if you keep it up others will treat you the way that you've treated them.
"Just imagine if the roles were reversed" wasn't a moral warning, it was a practical one. Treat others the way you would have others treat you, because at some point if you keep it up others will treat you the way that you've treated them.
If Jimmy Kimmel had been fighting for free speech against cancel culture for the past 10 years, I'd say "let's fight for the guy, doesn't matter if I disagree with him"
But he's past of the faction that hasn't shut up about "silencing misinformation and disinformation", why should anyone? They're hoisted by their own petard. They wanted the government to regulate disinformation and misinformation, and now the government is! They should celebrate their win!
Otoh, if Dave Chappelle wants to make a joke in poor taste about Charlie Kirk, I think I'd want to have his back because he did stand up when it looked like he'd lose everything for going against the crowd. Even if I disagreed with him. He's a man who earned his freedom in fire.
But he's past of the faction that hasn't shut up about "silencing misinformation and disinformation", why should anyone? They're hoisted by their own petard. They wanted the government to regulate disinformation and misinformation, and now the government is! They should celebrate their win!
Otoh, if Dave Chappelle wants to make a joke in poor taste about Charlie Kirk, I think I'd want to have his back because he did stand up when it looked like he'd lose everything for going against the crowd. Even if I disagreed with him. He's a man who earned his freedom in fire.
We create Hell, it isn't imposed upon us by God.
You could invite the damned into heaven, but they'd just turn it into Hell because they want to reject God's light.
You could invite the damned into heaven, but they'd just turn it into Hell because they want to reject God's light.
Is Gen Z the poorest generation ever? I've seen a few videos and posts suggesting that is the case.
Honestly, absolutely not. Not remotely.
Is Gen Z poorer than the boomers? Yes. Is Gen Z poorer than the millennials? Also yes. Are they the poorest in history? Not by a long shot.
Consider that a lot of previous generations struggled to get enough to eat. A lot of previous generations couldn't have actual savings. The bulk of many previous generations weren't even allowed to own anything since private ownership is a relatively recent thing in history.
You know the word "Bandit"? Well historically, that's not just a word, it's a lived reality. You couldn't really travel between cities easily because you'd be jumped by roving bands of such bandits because that's the only way they had to live. In Rome, many bandits were former farmers whose lands were taken by the government and given to soldiers without compensation. They'd be so many the would conquer a city, and they wouldn't hit the Louis Vuitton store, they'd hit the granary because a few tons of grain were worth more to them than luxury goods because they were so poor food wasn't a guarantee.
There have been chokepoints in human history where the average human was so destitute, the race nearly ended. We know of two such chokepoints, mitochondrial eve and Y-Chromosomal adam, where the entire human race has a single female and male ancestor. That doesn't mean that all of humanity was just one woman or one man at that time, but it does mean that humanity came close enough to the brink that such a bottleneck was possible. Comparing that to not being able to buy a nice house and a nice car, and there's no comparison.
Much more recently, workers in the early industrial revolution were constantly on a knife's edge, working their asses off and barely getting enough money for food and shelter, such that an employed worker faced a real potential for starvation.
Even in the past century or so, we have evidence of how destitute the average person was. Most people can barely fit in cars from the 40s and 50s. A Mustang used to be a car you and your wife might use, but today most people would find it uncomfortably cramped. Why? Because individuals face much better material conditions their entire lives and ignoring for a minute that being fat is considered a poor person's disease, people are incredibly tall and muscular compared to the past as well.
I do believe that the millennials and Gen Z are the poorest generation in the history of the world in other ways.
We are the poorest generations in history in that we have lost our connections to local culture and community. Before the postwar boom, more people went to church, more people participated in community clubs, more people had friends they saw in person on a regular basis.
We are the poorest generations in history in that we have some of the weakest family connections in world history. Postmodernism has attacked concepts like the family because they can be deconstructed. Many parents aren't passing on much to their kids except how to use an ipad. The majority of both men and women are seeing a collapsing likelihood of ever having families of their own.
We are the poorest generations in history in that we have lost more of our history and culture disappear than any other -- libraries full of books, and nobody reads. Certain specific societies seemed to have parallels in the bronze age collapse, but oral traditions did continue at that time. We don't even tell old stories because clever postmodernists deconstructed them and told us they were stupid. How many in Gen Z know about the seven Pleiades sisters? How many in Gen Z actually know the stories of King Arthur or Charlamagne? How many in Gen Z can look at the sky and understand the stars? Most of Gen Z can't even see the stars from their cities -- surrounded by lights when most societies were too poor to light every street every night all night, but missing the truth of reality beyond the shroud of that light.
Given that Gen Z and beyond are currently materially wealthy, their futures are bleak. Previous generations were poor, but at least they knew how to grow a potato. How many kids grow up thinking food comes from the store? If entire generations are growing up not knowing how to make the fundamentals of life work, how exactly are they supposed to maintain the immense wealth when it comes time for them to steward it? For that reason, I expect that the poorest generation in history may end up being something like Generation Gamma, after the boomers and even millennials die out, and bring their knowledge to the grave. Surrounded by farms, but nobody knows how to farm. Surrounded by technology that eventually erodes into rocks.
Honestly, absolutely not. Not remotely.
Is Gen Z poorer than the boomers? Yes. Is Gen Z poorer than the millennials? Also yes. Are they the poorest in history? Not by a long shot.
Consider that a lot of previous generations struggled to get enough to eat. A lot of previous generations couldn't have actual savings. The bulk of many previous generations weren't even allowed to own anything since private ownership is a relatively recent thing in history.
You know the word "Bandit"? Well historically, that's not just a word, it's a lived reality. You couldn't really travel between cities easily because you'd be jumped by roving bands of such bandits because that's the only way they had to live. In Rome, many bandits were former farmers whose lands were taken by the government and given to soldiers without compensation. They'd be so many the would conquer a city, and they wouldn't hit the Louis Vuitton store, they'd hit the granary because a few tons of grain were worth more to them than luxury goods because they were so poor food wasn't a guarantee.
There have been chokepoints in human history where the average human was so destitute, the race nearly ended. We know of two such chokepoints, mitochondrial eve and Y-Chromosomal adam, where the entire human race has a single female and male ancestor. That doesn't mean that all of humanity was just one woman or one man at that time, but it does mean that humanity came close enough to the brink that such a bottleneck was possible. Comparing that to not being able to buy a nice house and a nice car, and there's no comparison.
Much more recently, workers in the early industrial revolution were constantly on a knife's edge, working their asses off and barely getting enough money for food and shelter, such that an employed worker faced a real potential for starvation.
Even in the past century or so, we have evidence of how destitute the average person was. Most people can barely fit in cars from the 40s and 50s. A Mustang used to be a car you and your wife might use, but today most people would find it uncomfortably cramped. Why? Because individuals face much better material conditions their entire lives and ignoring for a minute that being fat is considered a poor person's disease, people are incredibly tall and muscular compared to the past as well.
I do believe that the millennials and Gen Z are the poorest generation in the history of the world in other ways.
We are the poorest generations in history in that we have lost our connections to local culture and community. Before the postwar boom, more people went to church, more people participated in community clubs, more people had friends they saw in person on a regular basis.
We are the poorest generations in history in that we have some of the weakest family connections in world history. Postmodernism has attacked concepts like the family because they can be deconstructed. Many parents aren't passing on much to their kids except how to use an ipad. The majority of both men and women are seeing a collapsing likelihood of ever having families of their own.
We are the poorest generations in history in that we have lost more of our history and culture disappear than any other -- libraries full of books, and nobody reads. Certain specific societies seemed to have parallels in the bronze age collapse, but oral traditions did continue at that time. We don't even tell old stories because clever postmodernists deconstructed them and told us they were stupid. How many in Gen Z know about the seven Pleiades sisters? How many in Gen Z actually know the stories of King Arthur or Charlamagne? How many in Gen Z can look at the sky and understand the stars? Most of Gen Z can't even see the stars from their cities -- surrounded by lights when most societies were too poor to light every street every night all night, but missing the truth of reality beyond the shroud of that light.
Given that Gen Z and beyond are currently materially wealthy, their futures are bleak. Previous generations were poor, but at least they knew how to grow a potato. How many kids grow up thinking food comes from the store? If entire generations are growing up not knowing how to make the fundamentals of life work, how exactly are they supposed to maintain the immense wealth when it comes time for them to steward it? For that reason, I expect that the poorest generation in history may end up being something like Generation Gamma, after the boomers and even millennials die out, and bring their knowledge to the grave. Surrounded by farms, but nobody knows how to farm. Surrounded by technology that eventually erodes into rocks.
I feel like those little chinese consoles are a hop skip and a jump away from being the most popular thing on the planet.
I just grabbed this one myself.
It's a golden age of open source game engine ports, hope it lasts a long time.
It's a golden age of open source game engine ports, hope it lasts a long time.
It's in a lot of places: Future Sepsis is on Amazon, Google Play store, kobo, apple store, and a few others. I spread it out this time because some people don't want to use Amazon.
Here it is on amazon.com: https://a.co/d/iUGrk0L
Here it is on amazon.com: https://a.co/d/iUGrk0L
Just checked in, I'm at 15 book sales on Future Sepsis. Which I know doesn't sound that great, but my preliminary goal is 19 sales in the first year -- According to a famous 2012 Penguin House lawsuit, more than 19 sales and you're doing better than like half their books, and I think that'd be funny to have some hillbilly from the sticks selling more than most of a big publisher's catalog.
You'd go back and be like "Hey, this is great! Everyone's still nuts, but look how cheap I can get a McChicken for!"
If the framers intended it to be simple and absolute, then why did they pass the sedition act just a few years after founding? The Sedition act was passed in 1798, and criminalized criticism of the government. Individuals were successfully convicted under the law. The Supreme Court did not strike down those laws, and instead it expired on its own.
That's within the lifetimes of the founders, many of them would still be in office.
To demonstrate that the founding fathers were still around, founding father Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801 after the presidency of founding father (And George Washington's Vice President) John Adams who had signed the bill into law. Jefferson pardoned the people convicted under the law.
Is your argument that the constitution document is simple because it doesn't apply and that's why the supreme court didn't strike the sedition act down when it had the chance? That's the only way what you're saying could make any sense. Otherwise, it's just the sort of abuse of power the Supreme court presumably ought to have protected against.
(And to answer my own question, the major reason the act didn't get struck down was likely that the legal basis for constitutional review of laws by the supreme court didn't really get started until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 which established the practice of the supreme court declaring laws unconstitutional)
Look, this is something that both the left and the right get wrong all the time: Courts and laws are very specific, and very anal about getting things just right and staying consistent with itself over centuries. That goes back before the US to the original common law courts in England in the 1100s. That original common law court is still cited today occasionally, believe it or not. That's how certain doctrines made it into the US legal system without US precedent. That's how a lot of common law concepts that seem at first to be incompatible with US law as you'd understand it on the surface occur. There's a lot of history there, and so slogans and platitudes really don't mean anything -- if you say something simply, you're probably getting it wrong.
The US inherited a lot of stuff from common law that seems counter to the constitution. It's one of the reasons why business advertising is treated differently than political speech, or why obscenity isn't protected under the first amendment and never has been.
That's within the lifetimes of the founders, many of them would still be in office.
To demonstrate that the founding fathers were still around, founding father Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801 after the presidency of founding father (And George Washington's Vice President) John Adams who had signed the bill into law. Jefferson pardoned the people convicted under the law.
Is your argument that the constitution document is simple because it doesn't apply and that's why the supreme court didn't strike the sedition act down when it had the chance? That's the only way what you're saying could make any sense. Otherwise, it's just the sort of abuse of power the Supreme court presumably ought to have protected against.
(And to answer my own question, the major reason the act didn't get struck down was likely that the legal basis for constitutional review of laws by the supreme court didn't really get started until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 which established the practice of the supreme court declaring laws unconstitutional)
Look, this is something that both the left and the right get wrong all the time: Courts and laws are very specific, and very anal about getting things just right and staying consistent with itself over centuries. That goes back before the US to the original common law courts in England in the 1100s. That original common law court is still cited today occasionally, believe it or not. That's how certain doctrines made it into the US legal system without US precedent. That's how a lot of common law concepts that seem at first to be incompatible with US law as you'd understand it on the surface occur. There's a lot of history there, and so slogans and platitudes really don't mean anything -- if you say something simply, you're probably getting it wrong.
The US inherited a lot of stuff from common law that seems counter to the constitution. It's one of the reasons why business advertising is treated differently than political speech, or why obscenity isn't protected under the first amendment and never has been.
>I think being able to freely express yourself without being prosecuted regardless of what it advocating is covered under the first amendment.
Well, you think wrong.
There's all kinds of things that aren't covered by the first amendment. It tends to be covered by strict scrutiny, meaning that you have to pass a 3 part test: It needs to be narrowly tailored, to address a compelling state interest, and it needs to be the least restrictive method necessary to achieve the end.
Examples of limits to the first amendment include fraud, libel, slander, commercial advertising, tobacco advertising, uttering terroristic threats, impersonating a police officer, use of radio communications, and there's more where that came from.
The ideal would have been to amend the constitution back in 1798 when the first Sedition Act was passed and the question of federal laws affecting freedom of speech first came up, but instead jurisprudence went this way long after that point, and the court never ruled on the sedition act.
Looking into it, the first supreme court case regarding the line between freedom of speech and threats to people's safety didn't happen until 1919, because prior to the 14th amendment in 1868, the bill of rights didn't apply to individual states, and generally federal law wasn't used for that sort of think widely until the world wars. Even the 1919 case was under the Espionage act for an individual passing out flyers calling on people to avoid the draft.
But don't get me wrong here -- I'm running my own instance solely because I do believe in freedom of speech, and when rubber meets road I don't domain block any instances or even block individuals on my own account. My main arguments here have been that it's complicated and nuanced and it isn't a deviation from principle to say that there's a line and some people might have crossed it.
Well, you think wrong.
There's all kinds of things that aren't covered by the first amendment. It tends to be covered by strict scrutiny, meaning that you have to pass a 3 part test: It needs to be narrowly tailored, to address a compelling state interest, and it needs to be the least restrictive method necessary to achieve the end.
Examples of limits to the first amendment include fraud, libel, slander, commercial advertising, tobacco advertising, uttering terroristic threats, impersonating a police officer, use of radio communications, and there's more where that came from.
The ideal would have been to amend the constitution back in 1798 when the first Sedition Act was passed and the question of federal laws affecting freedom of speech first came up, but instead jurisprudence went this way long after that point, and the court never ruled on the sedition act.
Looking into it, the first supreme court case regarding the line between freedom of speech and threats to people's safety didn't happen until 1919, because prior to the 14th amendment in 1868, the bill of rights didn't apply to individual states, and generally federal law wasn't used for that sort of think widely until the world wars. Even the 1919 case was under the Espionage act for an individual passing out flyers calling on people to avoid the draft.
But don't get me wrong here -- I'm running my own instance solely because I do believe in freedom of speech, and when rubber meets road I don't domain block any instances or even block individuals on my own account. My main arguments here have been that it's complicated and nuanced and it isn't a deviation from principle to say that there's a line and some people might have crossed it.