(THREAD) 🧵

"... 1969, in Brandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended, and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." - @ACLU Image
2/🧵

"Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today."

Full case pdf: tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
-
Suggested read: YOUR rights to speak. Understand, I'm not defending the propaganda. Hate it, too.
aclu.org/other/freedom-…
3/🧵

Free speech door swings both ways. I know someone is going to mention Fairness Doctrine, so I'll do that as 4/ and explain what it was, which most don't know, from a .gov attorney and why it doesn't apply.

Imagine DeSantis in charge of the .gov agency deciding 'fake news'. Image
4/🧵

Fairness Doctrine. Have a 17 page pdf - US .gov attorney. sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R4000…

Most have no idea what it actually did.

I'm just a lefty thinking ahead. Because a lunatic in charge of this sht eventually happens - somehow. Like Orwell, 'speech police'. Image
5/ 🧵

I guess there's no reason to get into "Congress shall make no law ..."

So, in 6/ We'll talk about the REAL threat to speech this far-right SCOTUS looks ready to overturn, 1964, New York Times vs. Sullivan.

Now 'fire in a crowed theater" ...🔽

6/🧵

How States and Congress Can Prepare for a Looming Threat to Freedom of Speech #1A lawfareblog.com/how-states-and… via
@jkosseff @MatthewSchafer

New York Times v Sullivan, 1964. Who benefits if it's overturned? Politicians, rich & powerful and corporations.
7/ 🧵

Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder."
-
Prior to Brandenburg Vs. Ohio. Then came the McCarthy era. Image
8/🧵

Prior to Brandenburg v Ohio.

'Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith .. ACLU
James Meredith: biography.com/activist/james… Image
9/🧵

Faux News the root of all evil? And these? Hundreds of whack outlets, print, radio, TV, YouTube, blogs. This is a short list.

SHUT THEM ALL DOWN!!! THEY LIE!!

(of course they do)

You can't shut them down without tossing your own 1st Amendment rights, and they know it. Image
10/ 🧵(end)

That list is a MAGA list pre-2020 election.☝️ Also, defamation. Sue their as$. Dominion is about to take a big chunk from Murdoch. Alex Jones? He lost. Civil court. Sandy Hook parents proved damages. Done. Also, lying under oath, not covered.

(End)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with News Views - Retired Hack Reporter ™

News Views - Retired Hack Reporter ™ Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @VegasVisions

Feb 26, 2023
1/

🧵⬇️ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has begun his unconstitutional assault on a free press, challenging long-standing SCOTUS law upholding press freedoms in 1964 New Times v Sullivan, but the same law (HB991) discriminates against LGBTQ rights. It’s designed to silence dissent.
2/

NY Times v Sullivan shaped press freedoms an held politician accountable even with unfavorable coverage they don’t agree with, not fines. it’s considered a basic pillar of the First Amendment. The case in a nutshell. ⬇️
3/

nytimes.com/2023/02/10/us/… Our fringe-right SCOTUS may take away these rights, and bankrupt every media, including social media, allowing them to sue with much lower standards.
Read 7 tweets
Feb 24, 2023
New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 - one of the most important First Amendment SCOTUS cases ever.

Our fringe-right court may take this right away. "Justice Clarence Thomas has written three times that he wants the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan."

More: wired.com/story/scotus-s…
2/

This is also the law DeSantis is trying to rewrite, which will effect free speech on social media and by bloggers - or anyone - even if they don't live in Florida. It's not *just* the press. It affects LGBTQ, gay rights, abortion speech. (See /3)

Read 4 tweets
Feb 19, 2023
1/ 🧵

Democrats need to understand the 26 words that created the internet as we know it - Section 230 before the Supreme Court next week. There’s a reason GQP Sen. Josh Hawley wants it gutted.

There’s a reason (D) Sen. @RonWyden wrote it. Let’s break it down. It protects YOU.
2/

“We're talking about rewriting the legal rules that govern the fundamental architecture of the internet," - @EFF

Conservatives are using the case as a vehicle to rail against "Big Tech" firms & amplify claims ..platforms censor content based on political ideology.” - CBS
3/

It fact, it does just the opposite of what Hawley claims, who has taken several shots at the First Amendment and free speech,

cbsnews.com/news/supreme-c…
Read 18 tweets
Oct 17, 2022
A right-wing #SCOTUS has now agreed to hear a case that could literally change the 26 words that created the internet.
-
The internet will be a much different place if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 230. ➡️ (podcast)
- slate.com/podcasts/what-… ⬅️ @jkosseff via @Slate #1A Image
2/

Section 230 effects social media, blogs, image sharing, forums and comment sections — any service that enables users to submit content. Literally every online platform that allows users to post information, share content, and comment relies on Section 230. Image
3/
ccianet.org/section230/

Sec. 230 ... is regarded as “the most important law in tech” because it encourages investment and innovation on the Internet by providing legal certainty to services that they will not be held liable for the speech or actions of third parties.'
Read 4 tweets
Oct 4, 2022
1 to 9 (THREAD) 🧵

Section 230: @EFF Electronic Freedom Foundation:

Do you like blogging? Substacks? Like being able to freely talk about abortion rights and LGBTQ issues on social media?

eff.org/issues/cda230

26 words created the internet. To Supreme Court now. #SCOTUS
2/

Clarence Thomas and a far-right #SCOTUS wants to decide what you can say on the internet, forcing liabilities for platforms.

Here are those 26 words, Section 230, Communication Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

Liability.
Read 11 tweets
Sep 5, 2022
BREAKING: Two #Earthquakes reported, Sichuan, #China. One 6.5 shallow depth, 6 miles, another 6.2 moments later, 29 mile depth #earthquake - both classified critical. 1/ ImageImage
3/ @USGS confirms now 6.6 with a swarm #earthquake #earthquakes #China Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(