This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
The way the first amendment is written in the US hate speech seems to be protected, and precedent like Snyder v. Phelps pretty consistently defends that line of reasoning, granted certain exceptions like the clear and present danger test (Schneck v. US). I was curious that, say a law was passed banning disinformational speech (which is speech that is intentionally false and intended to mislead) if it would be in violation of the first amendment. If you could prove that the speech was intentionally misleading and harmed someone, somehow, do you think such a law could be upheld?
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 2 years ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- reddit.com/r/legaladvice...