NotThatSoph
lemons are annoying
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Messages
- 4,309
Thanks that makes sense, just framing I guess. I don't think the right to make truthful claims was ever in contention hence the focus solely on whether it's defamation or not. I don't think most layman would see that as a first amendment issue as it's widely understood defamation isn't covered.
I'd argue her lawyer only brought it up so as to lead/reinforce the idea that the statements were truthful. Which is his job so would be odd if he didn't.
Yes but that's why it is a first amendment issue, the question of defamation is inherently that question. To say that it's not a first amendment issue because defamation isn't covered is wrong on two levels. In the big picture what is or isn't, or what should or shouldn't be protected by the first amendment are first amendment questions. And, in this specific case saying that it isn't a first amendment issue because defamation isn't covered is simply begging the question. If the jury finds for Heard then they're saying that it isn't defamation exactly because her speech is protected by the first amendment.
These are free speech questions in the same way that all the other speech questions are. Anti-protest laws, harassment, assault, incitement of hatred, threats, advertisement, porn, lobbying, blackmail. Are these things allowed or not? Where are the limits? The answer to these questions differ from country to country, and when we as a society decide on the answers we are drawing the limits of free speech. Several countries, including the US, used to have much stricter rules about porn than we have now, meaning that we have moved in the direction of more free speech in that domain. On the other hand, several countries have introduced hate speech laws, meaning that we have moved in the direction of less free speech here. When people say that hate speech isn't free speech, that doesn't mean that it isn't a question of free speech.