Hacker News Reader

Comment by nate_meurer | Hacker News Reader

What I'm saying is that "benefit to society" is not and has never been a valid test for lawful expression in the U.S.

And yes, we allow people to do many things you might consider "bad", such as garish hyperbole (as is the case here), and much worse things like advocating for the overthrow of the government (e.g., by impeachment, prosecution, election, mass protests, etc.) Angry speech against government officials and entities is a vital, fundamental right, a key to liberty in democratic societies.

View on HN

I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't questioning what the law is or how it works. I was questioning the benefit of allowing for murder advocacy under the law. That is, why is free speech ever useful, in the specific case of murder advocacy? If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it? I'm not disputing that there's a benefit to angry speech.

> "If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it?"

If tasteless hyperbole isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

If offensive comedy or idle chatter on facebook isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

If pornography (which includes nudity in classic artwork to some people) isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

If insulting the Prophet Mohammed isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

If advocating for the overthrow of the government isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

I hope you see the point here, because I'm running short on ways to explain it. I couldn't give a shit whether woodchipper-murder fantasies are a "benefit to society", and guess what? The constitution doesn't give a shit either. It's protected speech because, in the absence of a clear threat, harassment, or defamation (or espionage, etc.), we as a society have decided that it's none of our business whether your speech is "beneficial" by any criteria.

No, I don't see the point. I never said anything about tasteless hyperbole, idle stupid chatter on facebook, criticizing others' religions, or advocating for sedition. Obviously there are times where those things are beneficial. (Since my reply you added some other things that I never brought up. Include them as well.)

I was just wondering, is it ever beneficial to advocate for murder? If it is not beneficial, why do we need to protect it?

So far as I understand you, your answer is: we need to protect it because it's the law. I know that it's the law. I am asking, why do we need that law, when it comes to advocacy for murder? Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for murder, soon we'll be banning other things that do have some arguable benefit? If that is what you are saying, why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy for murder?

Note (again): in the specific case of advocacy for terrorism, we did ban advocacy for murder.

> "Are you saying that if we ban advocacy for murder, soon we'll be banning other things"

Yes.

> "Why is there no middle ground where we can just stop at banning advocacy for murder?"

Because "murder advocacy" is just something that you're hung up on. There are many more people who are hung up on offensive speech, hate speech, pornography, blasphemy, etc. And the reason those aren't illegal is that the first amendment doesn't judge expression based on its "benefit".

If this weren't the case, then every successive government regime at every level would seek to apply it's own agenda to your speech, and all those things I listed above and plenty more would be at risk. Because while you have your own opinion about "murder advocacy", there are many more powerful people who have their own little opinions about other speech that you might actually value. Once again, the only reason you don't have to worry about those people is that the constitution doesn't allow them to judge your speech by the rules you're proposing here. Sort of ironic huh?

You're making a (fallacious) slippery slope argument by refusing to admit a middle ground.

Further, every law exists for (some portion of) society's benefit. What else are laws for? That's why I keep asking, if the application of a law doesn't have any benefit to anybody, why do we need it? Because then we might scrap other laws, or other applications of the same law? Again, slippery slope.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com