Different levels of speech get different protection (political speech, commercial speech, etc.) but I don't like the term "low-value speech". Who decides the value?
Defamatory speech isn't protected. But I still don't think "low-value" is a helpful description.
For example take comments on Slashdot or wherever saying "first post" (or "first comment" or whatever). Do they have value? Most would say no. Does that mean they shouldn't be protected?
Defamatory speech is also protected to a degree because it isn't possible to weed out beforehand, but carries consequences and could be censored after the fact.
Comments
Do you really think there's no such thing as "low-value speech"? I'm not asking whether you think it's OK to regulate it.
Different levels of speech get different protection (political speech, commercial speech, etc.) but I don't like the term "low-value speech". Who decides the value?
What about categorically low-value speech? Deliberately false and malicious speech?
Defamatory speech isn't protected. But I still don't think "low-value" is a helpful description.
For example take comments on Slashdot or wherever saying "first post" (or "first comment" or whatever). Do they have value? Most would say no. Does that mean they shouldn't be protected?
Defamatory speech is also protected to a degree because it isn't possible to weed out beforehand, but carries consequences and could be censored after the fact.
I meant "protected" in the legal sense, but you're right.