Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CalTechie-55 t1_ixtk9f9 wrote

That's why we need a First Amendment.

This is the kind of shit that can happen without it.

−76

Autismic123 t1_ixtsgi6 wrote

Fiji Lawyer

First Amendment

51

iceynyo t1_ixtwdin wrote

Must've thought it was about the water company

23

Autismic123 t1_ixtwfa6 wrote

yeah Fiji is probably part of alaska or something

5

ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy09f44 wrote

I think the point was "this kind of shit happening in a foreign country is why we, here, have, and need, the First Amendment."

2

PandasInHoodies t1_ixtqv7z wrote

r/USdefaultism

35

QuietShipper t1_ixullby wrote

Technically, this could be a resident of Fiji saying "we need a first amendment" making your comment r/USdefaultism

4

shadowrun456 t1_ixvpyxh wrote

Maybe, but freedom of speech is not unique to the US, and freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment in the US is not even the "freest" free speech in the world.

5

gathermewool t1_ixv3gv1 wrote

I get it normally and if this was /worldnews, but what percentage of Reddit members are from the US?

−1

Drone30389 t1_ixtrgfj wrote

> When someone communicates to the world, but only considers the existence of USA, and don't consider the different nuances around the world.

How do you figure that fits?

−15

Independent-Metal610 t1_ixts3lv wrote

Not OP but I’m just gonna take a wild stab in the dark here, so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt. I could be completely wrong. Here goes:

Fiji isn’t the USA.

23

Drone30389 t1_ixtsn3z wrote

Of course it's not, why would they suggest needing a 1st amendment if it was?

11

Alexstarfire t1_ixu1u2s wrote

Yea, I'm confused by the downvotes. The original comment doesn't even make sense if they are talking about the USA.

9

Briancl12 t1_ixugjrb wrote

Because 1. First Amendment means something very different in most countries 2. It implies that the US First Amendment is the only thing that allows freedom of speech

7

Bestihlmyhart t1_ixugs3l wrote

It doesn’t. The dude literally said that’s why they need a first amendment not that they have one

3

Bolusss t1_ixwak4m wrote

What would be in that amendment? Chapter 2 of the constitution already guarantees their rights?

1

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixu2dke wrote

Except again, first amendment has nothing to do with it.

First amendment means the government cant prevent you from talking. Judges are not part of the government, as justice does not depend on government.

Contempt of court also exists in the US.

8

YakInner4303 t1_ixvd8dk wrote

In the United States, the judiciary is considered a branch of government coequal with the legislative and executive branches.

Regardless, the courts draw authority from laws. These are required to not infringe on freedom of speech by the US constitution. So a court cannot properly interpret a contempt law in a way that would allow a 'contempt of court' citation to infringe on freedom of speech.

4

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixyffyk wrote

Dude, that was a public message on facebook, not a remark done in a court of law. Read the damn article.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Mandatory XKCD:

https://xkcd.com/1357/

0

YakInner4303 t1_ixz8080 wrote

You made a false statement about US law. I corrected you.

The guy spoke in a public forum. The court took action to silence him. Very much a free speech issue.

1

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixzmv4p wrote

No it is not. Read the damn XKCD.

−2

ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy09w80 wrote

Yes it is. Mocking the court for the court's mistake is very much free speech in the U.S. The government, in the form of the court punishing the mocking party, would very quickly find itself on the wrong side of a ACLU lawsuit for infringing upon free speech.

1

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2ogp8 wrote

No, and you are wrong, proof here :

https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/

0

ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy2p3qj wrote

> This is in relation to a committal proceeding filed against him by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

Mmmmh, yes, we sure do have a Prime Minister here in the United States.

In case this poster deletes his post full'o ignorance, here it is, in full:

> [–]randomFrenchDeadbeat [score hidden] 8 minutes ago 

> No, and you are wrong, proof here :

> https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/

1

randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2pytg wrote

lol

i didnt even check who I was talking to.

you manage to answer twice, and wonder why you got the same answer twice XD

0

sexybimbogf t1_ixwtm1u wrote

contempt of court is not protected speech under the First Amendment

2