Hacker News Reader

There are already many forms of speech that have limited or no protection in the United State: perjury, defamation, incitement, threats, obsceneties, fighting words, commercial speech, and copy-written works.

I have yet to see a proposal for additional classes of unprotected speech that materially benefit the social discourse.

View on HN

Are you referring to the govt or more broadly?

Because (in relation to the article) we're talking about companies and social groups making decisions, not just the govt. Notably, I think the US 1st amendment is basically based around the idea that we, collectively, will take social action above the personal level. If you remove that ability, my defense of the 1st amendment reduces notably.

I see the social discourse primarily being improved by the general awareness that it CAN be harmed. To think it's immune from harm outside of censorship is the key problem.

What categories of speech outside of the categories I've listed would be valuable for private entities to restrict?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com