Muito interessante: novos entendimentos sobre a liberdade de expressão e mais nos EUA

A private act can transform the entire world into a crowded theater, in his view, and he suspects that the First Amendment might not protect Quran burning or other acts that might drive listeners to violence. In Breyer’s view—and it’s clear from his dissent that Alito agrees—the Internet has created the possibility of a kind of First Amendment butterfly effect, wherein a Quran burning in a Florida parking lot can launch a revolution half a world away. They suspect that the line between public and private speech has been blurred, if not obliterated, by new technologies and they are each frustrated that the court still pretends otherwise in its First Amendment cases.

3 thoughts on “Muito interessante: novos entendimentos sobre a liberdade de expressão e mais nos EUA”

  1. Interessante. Concordo, muito, com este comentador:

    The real worry I take out of this article is the notion that burning a Koran (or a flag, or any other protest speech) could be considered “driving someone to violence.” We have always, in this nation, adopted the stance that free speech is to be tolerated, and when violence arises in response to speech, it is the violent who are to blame, unless the speaker is directly trying to convince his or her hearers to attack people.

    This is very different from shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater, where the speech is actually creating a danger. We’re talking here about speech that only is related to the danger by happening to be offensive to people who are willing to create a danger when they are offended. And if Alito and Breyer are really willing to follow that road where it leads, they’ll quickly find that it dismantles the entire First Amendment, subjugating the entire freedom of speech to the whims of anyone who is willing to take up arms when offended, which can be anyone (and which will be many more people if that becomes an effective way to squash your opponents’ ability to speak their minds), and especially can be the government, who has the most arms of all. Let’s not forget the examples of places like Iran, or China, where any persuasive speech oriented toward opposition is considered a fire-in-a-crowded-theater moment.

  2. A mim parece-me que a “liberdde de expressão” neste caso é invocada por uns gajos, a maior parte crianças da família, que protestam contra homossexuais em geral e a igreja católica e os homos nela, em particular, e a favor do ataque de Deus às torres do 9-11, etc, etc, para acentuar a estupidez de pequena igrejinha que anda a ser paga para causar confusões. Será que a autora do post se apercebeu disso quando pensou em dar este milhito às galinhas, ou será mais um pretexto para nos começar a falar dos seus sofredores manos e manas do costume?

Deixe uma resposta

O seu endereço de email não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios marcados com *

Este site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Fica a saber como são processados os dados dos comentários.