I thought you were replying to me at first, but it just reaffirm what I said so now it looks like you were replying to someone else maybe
The ruling reaffirmed that the government cannot punish speech just because it is offensive or upsetting, reinforcing strong protections for free speech under the First Amendment.
Nope, I was definitely replying to you. The court decided there’s a subtle difference and that their “God hates fags” signs skirt hate speech laws quite well within the US legal framework. And I unfortunately agree as a gay atheist.
it just reaffirm what I said
Hold on. The fact that they went to trial over it and that there was litigation of the particular use of language is indication that not all speech is free speech and that careful consideration of where that line is was required. If their signs had been different this ruling would’ve also been quite different based on the same premise.
MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee 5 days ago
I thought you were replying to me at first, but it just reaffirm what I said so now it looks like you were replying to someone else maybe
The ruling reaffirmed that the government cannot punish speech just because it is offensive or upsetting, reinforcing strong protections for free speech under the First Amendment.
Lemminary@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Nope, I was definitely replying to you. The court decided there’s a subtle difference and that their “God hates fags” signs skirt hate speech laws quite well within the US legal framework. And I unfortunately agree as a gay atheist.
Hold on. The fact that they went to trial over it and that there was litigation of the particular use of language is indication that not all speech is free speech and that careful consideration of where that line is was required. If their signs had been different this ruling would’ve also been quite different based on the same premise.