>the Australian Government isn't asking to censor any speech .. they want to dampen down the glorification of violent acts by asking social media to not carry the video of the stabbing.
Posting the video is a form of speech.
Posting the video is a form of speech.
Explain how, if "video is a form of speech" it is the case that
Miller_v._California : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California
and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Adult_Theatre_I_v._Slato...
even exist as U.S. Supreme Court rulings?
Please keep in mind the HN guidelines.
Be kind. Don't be snarky. [0]
The cases you linked are about limits on speech. They don't do anything to demonstrate video isn't a speech.
They specifically treat film | video in a manner distinct from the spoken or written word.
Which really is all that is sufficient to establish the point that free speech has categories and that video has been treated in as a seperate category to the spoken word and both to the written word.
The claim that free speech is equally and equivilantly { film , speech , writing } in the USofA is false in law.
They overlap to a large degree, but not perfectly.
There is precedent for limiting video content within a free speech society.
> But I'm guessing we're agreed that video and books have been treated seperately
In a narrow and irrelevant manner only. Visual child pornography is extra illegal.
> There is precedent for limiting video content within a free speech society.
There is precedent for limiting all forms of speech.
* Speech,
* Writing,
* Video,
* Dance,
* Morse Code,
and many many other forms of communication.
> Visual child pornography is extra illegal.
But written isn't? Clearly there are priors for Australia limiting video content.
The statute making visual child pornography extra illegal was limited to visual media. The reasons the statute held up in court were not.
There is precedent for Australia limiting written and spoken words.
No.
Speech is talky talky audible words.
Video is moving pictures but not film.
> the fact that they are not the same as spoken or written speech,
Yes, that's the fact, both in real life and legally, as evidenced in transcripts of numerous cases before courts.
> even though that wasn't something that was ever claimed?
This person did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154349
They typed in written form "Posting the video is a form of speech."
apparently not grasping what you have just agreed to as fact; moving pictures are not spoken words.
Legally, it's much broader in scope.
At this point arguing further and not agreeing or acknowledging that basic truth is arguing semantics and nothing more, and not something I'm interested in continuing for the sake of it to to have a final say.
Cheers.