4 ms·

regressive idea of Free Expression Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fi

regressive idea of Free Expression Regressive is an interesting choice of wording. Freedoms, as always, are relative -- the classic your right to swing your fist ends at my nose sort of thing. Canada has progressive notions of free speech that fully enables the overwhelming majority of speech, encoded in Charter of Rights. But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, you can't incite hate in Canada. Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
Fun fact: the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument came from a Supreme Court justice explaining why it was okay to imprison people for publishing pamphlets arguing against the WW1 draft. It's not really a great choice of allusion when you're trying to convince others that you're big on free speech.
- KGIII 9y ago
  The judge later regretted the choice and said so publicly. He'd reverse that choice in a later ruling and join the minority opinion. There's a good Wikipedia article on this.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater This is example comes from dubious (in terms of it's accuracy in reflecting even the then-current state of Constitutional law) dicta in a since-overturned case upholding suppression of core political speech.
- endorphone 9y ago
  This is example comes from dubious Utterly irrelevant, though this is the copy/paste regurgitated reply whenever it's mentioned. Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be hit with a variety of fun charges. Just as you have absolutely no right to announce threats against other persons, most defended being the president or any other politician. All speech has limits. Because speech has worldly consequences.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be charge with a variety of fun charges. Most likely, you'll just be thrown out of the theater. If you actually dircectly provoke a riot by doing that, then you'll be subject to criminal sanction. Without inciting imminent lawless action, it's protected speech. > All speech has limits. Free speech has limits, but the “fire in a crowded theater” example (and the “clear and present danger” rule it came along with) is not an valid example of the limits (or the operative rule).
syshum 9y ago
>>But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, Please stop with that https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... >or threaten the president, Actually you can, the Secret Service will investigate to determine if it a "True Threat" but the number of people actually prosecuted for threatening the president is exceeding low, don't confuse the Secret Service Investigation with a suppression of speech. >Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection. Speech that is popular and not offensive does not need protection int eh first place

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

Fun fact: the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument came from a Supreme Court justice explaining why it was okay to imprison people for publishing pamphlets arguing against the WW1 draft. It's not really a great choice of allusion when you're trying to convince others that you're big on free speech.

KGIII 9y ago
The judge later regretted the choice and said so publicly. He'd reverse that choice in a later ruling and join the minority opinion. There's a good Wikipedia article on this.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater This is example comes from dubious (in terms of it's accuracy in reflecting even the then-current state of Constitutional law) dicta in a since-overturned case upholding suppression of core political speech.

endorphone 9y ago
This is example comes from dubious Utterly irrelevant, though this is the copy/paste regurgitated reply whenever it's mentioned. Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be hit with a variety of fun charges. Just as you have absolutely no right to announce threats against other persons, most defended being the president or any other politician. All speech has limits. Because speech has worldly consequences.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Go yell fire in a theater right now. You will be charge with a variety of fun charges. Most likely, you'll just be thrown out of the theater. If you actually dircectly provoke a riot by doing that, then you'll be subject to criminal sanction. Without inciting imminent lawless action, it's protected speech. > All speech has limits. Free speech has limits, but the “fire in a crowded theater” example (and the “clear and present danger” rule it came along with) is not an valid example of the limits (or the operative rule).

syshum 9y ago

>>But just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, Please stop with that https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... >or threaten the president, Actually you can, the Secret Service will investigate to determine if it a "True Threat" but the number of people actually prosecuted for threatening the president is exceeding low, don't confuse the Secret Service Investigation with a suppression of speech. >Most people would call demanding the right to incite hate deeply regressive, and indeed, it is the most regressive who need that protection. Speech that is popular and not offensive does not need protection int eh first place