CynicalIdealist
Ken WhiteHow do we decide what a "true threat" is when we have no cultural consensus on what a "reasonable person" is?
https://popehat.substack.com/p/true-threats-and-american-cultural
hammancheez@Popehat well we all know it aint Ken
gottem bois
Allan Chow
Pēteris Krišjānis@Popehat nice insights about free speech and border cases in USA, thanks
Ben Wyatt 🏳️🌈@Popehat I imagine a significant part of the country wouldn't find the Justices themselves to be "reasonable" people - but they'd definitely disagree on which ones.
royal 
@Popehat I am not a lawyer, but I've read some of the foundational literature of the time of the founding fathers, and it always seemed to me that "reasonable" and "rational" wound up meaning "whatever this particular man in a wig and high heels happened to agree with".
Packy Anderson@Popehat I think it's adorable that you think putting the shopping cart back is a monocultural idea.
I've been yelled at and called a sheeple because "it's the store's job to put those back", and just like using the self-checkout, I'm doing the store's work for it by putting my cart in the corral. I only wish it had been in person, so I could have shoved the cart at their pickup truck and then told them it was the store's job to stop it.
William Johnston@Popehat Is this related to the concept of a "jury of peers"? Do we have any historical precedence for juries explicitly being drawn from folks with a similar background/culture/set of norms? It seems like that has its own problems, though…
Doire@wjohnston @Popehat
In as much as it comes from English common law the original "jury of your peers" were literally peers. The aristocracy ensuring they were not judged by a king and ignoring everyone else.
In as much as it comes from English common law the original "jury of your peers" were literally peers. The aristocracy ensuring they were not judged by a king and ignoring everyone else.
Log 🪵@Popehat There are plenty of reasonable *people*. We have mostly agreed to stay hidden from the 8 billion *humans*, because they're so very disco-banana-pants when it comes to rational standards.
Seán Fenian@Popehat four words:
"Chipotle-teriyaki fusion chicken."
"Chipotle-teriyaki fusion chicken."
@Popehat I note, perhaps unnecessarily, that this remark is in the context of kimbap burritos, not the context of evaluating what is a true threat or what is acceptable as "expression".
@Popehat
As a European, well ex-European thanks to our governing idiots, and so used to feeling that hate-speech ought to be at least frowned upon, I wonder if this type of argument could reconcile the two patterns of thought.
Milling on it, I think I consider hate-speech as defamation of a whole class.
As a European, well ex-European thanks to our governing idiots, and so used to feeling that hate-speech ought to be at least frowned upon, I wonder if this type of argument could reconcile the two patterns of thought.
Milling on it, I think I consider hate-speech as defamation of a whole class.
@Popehat
"Reasonable person" standard kind of makes sense from a philosophical originalist standpoint, as the dominance of Scottish commonsense realism was the default consensus, but that consensus fell apart at the civil war. (And to be clear, it was a lot less "common" than those advancing it wanted to believe).
"Reasonable person" standard kind of makes sense from a philosophical originalist standpoint, as the dominance of Scottish commonsense realism was the default consensus, but that consensus fell apart at the civil war. (And to be clear, it was a lot less "common" than those advancing it wanted to believe).
Beeks@Popehat can we compromise and just put gamers who "joke" about committing a mass murder on a watch list?
Paul Grimes@Popehat it's a man on the Clapham omnibus.
@Popehat Something seems wrong with Substack, can't subscribe to your newsletter. Anyway, here are my two cents on the true threat question:
1. Must be physically actionable e.g Shooting someone is possible, blowing up the sun isn't.
2. Directed towards a specific individual or group.
3. Located nearby or knows where subject lives.
4. Has the means to carry out threat or could have the means to carry out threat.
5. The underlying action is illegal. ("doxxing", assault, etc.)
I think if these four are met, than the threat should be unprotected by the 1st amendment. (Edited to add the fifth point).
1. Must be physically actionable e.g Shooting someone is possible, blowing up the sun isn't.
2. Directed towards a specific individual or group.
3. Located nearby or knows where subject lives.
4. Has the means to carry out threat or could have the means to carry out threat.
5. The underlying action is illegal. ("doxxing", assault, etc.)
I think if these four are met, than the threat should be unprotected by the 1st amendment. (Edited to add the fifth point).