I read a summary of yesterday's SCOTUS activity on this case that said SCOTUS was admonishing the plaintiffs because they hadn't shown the harm that was done to them by the government's efforts to suppress speech.
While I think this is off-track (as GM explained so well, they should be addressing the infringements of rights not worrying about proving harm), I think the plaintiffs need to attack the claim that the wrong information can harm people. Make the government prove that information is DIRECTLY harmful to people.
Information by itself can do no harm. Information is just words and images that are processed by people. People then decide what they will do with that information. Absorb it, ignore it, talk about it with friends, whatever. There can be no possible harm until the person takes action. Any harm is thus the responsibility of the person taking in the information, not on the purveyor of the information.
If we can blow up the claim that information is harmful to people, the justification for censorship falls apart.
I listened to the whole thing live yesterday and was astonished by the very same thing. "Where's the harm?" was the gist of way too much questioning. This pertains to "standing" I gather, which seems to be legalese for "we don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole."
I am regretting my snarky question above; but we are tribal animals and I am concerned that the temptation to do too little will be too strong. We have come a long way since Snyder v. Phelps.
I read a summary of yesterday's SCOTUS activity on this case that said SCOTUS was admonishing the plaintiffs because they hadn't shown the harm that was done to them by the government's efforts to suppress speech.
While I think this is off-track (as GM explained so well, they should be addressing the infringements of rights not worrying about proving harm), I think the plaintiffs need to attack the claim that the wrong information can harm people. Make the government prove that information is DIRECTLY harmful to people.
Information by itself can do no harm. Information is just words and images that are processed by people. People then decide what they will do with that information. Absorb it, ignore it, talk about it with friends, whatever. There can be no possible harm until the person takes action. Any harm is thus the responsibility of the person taking in the information, not on the purveyor of the information.
If we can blow up the claim that information is harmful to people, the justification for censorship falls apart.
I listened to the whole thing live yesterday and was astonished by the very same thing. "Where's the harm?" was the gist of way too much questioning. This pertains to "standing" I gather, which seems to be legalese for "we don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole."
'which seems to be legalese for "we don't want to touch this with a 10-foot pole."'
Exactly, but what is driving their fear of addressing it? Are they in on the con or being blackmailed?
Invitations to the best cocktail parties?
If it's that shallow it's even worse than the other options.
I am regretting my snarky question above; but we are tribal animals and I am concerned that the temptation to do too little will be too strong. We have come a long way since Snyder v. Phelps.
Exactly. Well said! Gosh and we arenтАЩt even lawyers, but understand how important the 1st amendment is. And why itтАЩs the 1st.