That's the whole point of the "crowded theater" idea. It's part of why I think the ACLU is defending the wrong principle, too.
-
-
But bans on "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is simply not a part of US law https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Thanks for sending; I didn't realize that was the origin of the phrase. I will stop using "crowded theater," as it seems an awful example.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @verogg and
Makes me happy to know that, to be honest, as I've always thought it was a bad example of what speech one should consider restricting.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @verogg and
The general point that we do restrict speech stands, though, as does my point that I believe power to be the principle we should emphasize.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I'm pretty libertarian on free speech. I think anything that's not slander/libel or clear incitements to violence should be protected
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The march yesterday was explicitly about intimidation. The problem with that standard is that the terms you're stating are hard to define.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
But the word "intimidation" is much more vague than incitement as spelled out by the Brandenburg test http://freespeechdebate.com/case/the-brandenburg-test-for-incitement-to-violence/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I mean, it's fairly obvious in this case, given that their words/intent were explicit. It's vague in general, but so is what you linked!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BenSpielberg @verogg and
We can't get away from some amount of vagueness here. The question is about what goal you think we should be striving for.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Under this standard, what would prevent a GOP politician from declaring socialist rhetoric "incitement" and suppressing it on that ground?
-
-
Replying to @mtracey @BenSpielberg and
Or "intimidation," or whatever you're using as the operative word to justify curtailment of speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The same "nothing" that prevents that politician from making nonsensical claims now, under your definition of speech. That's my point.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 11 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.