Hacker News Reader

Comment by dekhn | Hacker News Reader

I don't agree that applies in this case- in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence. In the case of the protesters at Harvard their intent is much less clear - I suspect even the people calling for intifada aren't attempts to elicit immediate violence.

I broke my cardinal rule- never get involved in an internet discussion of free speech. Also, and this is purely opinion- I think the Supreme Court made an error in their ruling.

View on HN

It does apply. Westboro has already argued the “true threat” position and won.

https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro...

Clearly, the justices and I have a difference of opinion about what a direct threat looks like (in the case of Westboro).

Yes but, as someone else pointed out, Harvard is a private school that takes federal funding. The Supreme Court’s decision wouldn’t affect them either way.

> I don't agree that applies in this case

You don't think the doctrine applies, or you don't think it is satisfied?

I think the bigger issue here is that Harvard does not guarantee First Amendment levels of free speech protection. They caution students about all sorts of protected speech, so what the First Amendment does or doesn't protect isn't really relevant.

> in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence.

They did? When I learned about them in law school, we only covered their unsavory protesting at military funerals, which did not involve advocating violence. What did they do that advocated direct violence?

Sorry, I was working on the assumption that "Death to gays" was considered a direct call to violence, but it does not seem to be.

(All of this was a misunderstanding caused by me misparsing a statement above suggesting Westboro was protesting at Harvard)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com