4 ms·

As with most things in life, there are nuances. The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't

As with most things in life, there are nuances. The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). There's room for difference of opinion on whether an individual circumstance crosses into the "Creating a clear and present danger" category, or apparently even whether the "clear and present danger" restriction is sound. I'd be willing to classify people who don't see a problem with shouting things intended to cause immediate harm 'free speech extremists,' for example.

syshum 9y ago
>>>The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). Except for the fact that I am not talking about, nor ever used a reference to the 1st amendment to the US Constitution I am talking about Free Speech, not Constitutional law. Those are different issues Further, I am extremely tired of people using "Yell Fire" as a excuse for censorship Schenck was a TERRIBLE precedent and has been largely over turned by other rulings 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... https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... "Bear all of that in mind the next time someone name-drops Holmes and cites Schenck as part of a broad endorsement of censorship. The problem isn't that they're incorrectly citing Holmes. The problem is that they are citing him exactly right, for the vague, censorious, and fortunately long-departed "standard" he articulated. Justice Holmes, three generations of hearing your sound-bite are enough." -- Ken White
- fixermark 9y ago
  Outside of a specific legal, moral, or philosophical framework, the meaning of "Free Speech" likely varies too much from observer to observer to have much value in discussion.
- chc 9y ago
  That's why I never use the "yell fire" example. I always use the example of ordering a hit on somebody. Technically all you did was speak, but that speech has big consequences beyond simple conversation. It would be ludicrous to say that the principle of free speech demands we allow people to put hits on other people. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates that there are reasonable limits to free speech.

syshum 9y ago

>>>The free speech right guarded by the First Amendment in the US is not absolute; there are categories that don't meet the criteria (such as the "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, Schenck v. United States, 1919). Except for the fact that I am not talking about, nor ever used a reference to the 1st amendment to the US Constitution I am talking about Free Speech, not Constitutional law. Those are different issues Further, I am extremely tired of people using "Yell Fire" as a excuse for censorship Schenck was a TERRIBLE precedent and has been largely over turned by other rulings 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... https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... "Bear all of that in mind the next time someone name-drops Holmes and cites Schenck as part of a broad endorsement of censorship. The problem isn't that they're incorrectly citing Holmes. The problem is that they are citing him exactly right, for the vague, censorious, and fortunately long-departed "standard" he articulated. Justice Holmes, three generations of hearing your sound-bite are enough." -- Ken White

fixermark 9y ago
Outside of a specific legal, moral, or philosophical framework, the meaning of "Free Speech" likely varies too much from observer to observer to have much value in discussion.
chc 9y ago
That's why I never use the "yell fire" example. I always use the example of ordering a hit on somebody. Technically all you did was speak, but that speech has big consequences beyond simple conversation. It would be ludicrous to say that the principle of free speech demands we allow people to put hits on other people. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates that there are reasonable limits to free speech.