This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I guess I don't get why a specific law would and should survive scrutiny, whereas the application of the general law outlawing conspiracy to deprive someone of rights to the same conduct would not. As you know, the Court has often held that the application of a general law to the actions of a defendant violate that defendant's free speech rights, but I don't recall a single time that the Court said that a specific law that did exactly the same thing would somehow not be a violation of his free speech rights. That doesn't mean that they don't exist, but I would be interested to see one.
That does not seem to be true:
Anderson is not cited for its holding or facts, but merely for "compiling cases that upheld restrictions on speech to protect electoral integrity."
Burson is cited merely for the principle that even pure, political speech on the merits of candidates and ballot issues can be restricted in order to preserve election integrity. And the statute there "prohibits the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. That is not "non-speech conduct."
John Doe is cited for the same thing, and related to a law permitting the public release of referendum petitions. Signing a petition to but a referendum on the ballot is not "non-speech conduct."
Wohl is cited merely for the claim that " lower courts have not been blind to the grave risks offered by conduct like that of the defendant" but, as you noted, it is about robocalls falsely telling voters that if they vote by mail, "your personal information will be part of a public database that will be used by police departments to track down old warrants and be used by credit card companies to collect outstanding debts." That sounds like pretty much pure speech to me.
More options
Context Copy link