3 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

10 years ago @ Eurovision America - This Week in Eurovision · 0 replies · +1 points

Afraid not. I've never actually been to Indiana at all.

12 years ago @ Internet Cases - Judge uses Facebook to... · 0 replies · +1 points

Did the Commissioner/DOJ present the Facebook picture as evidence, or did the judge find it on his/her own? I would think that the judge taking notice of this would be unethical ex parte "communications."

13 years ago @ THE CUBAN REVOLUTION - Professor Alan Dershow... · 0 replies · +1 points

Yes, but only speech that threatens harm or intimidates can be constitutionally regulated. See Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (holding that while prohibiting cross-burning with the intent to intimidate is constitutional, making cross-burning prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate then criminalizing cross-burning with the intent to intimidate is not).

Saying "the Holocaust didn't happen" is clearly a factual misstatement, but that doesn't make it intimidating or threatening. There's a line between regulating hate speech and regulating speech that incites to dangerous action.

However, I believe there's a huge difference between a law that criminalizes Holocaust denial and a policy of Facebook, a private entity, to not permit Holocaust denial using its resources. I think that a Facebook ban would be entirely appropriate.