5 ms·

To my knowledge, credible threats are not allowed speech..

• SiempreViernes 9y ago
  So you accept the notion of allowed speech, but maybe disagree on where the line goes. That's fine, and something different from the people complaining that nazis should be allowed to preach about the destruction of the negro because after all "that's just an opinion".
  • jerkstate 9y ago
    Credible or actual harm is useable as a legal standard. If you wanted to outlaw "hate speech" what standard could be used to do that? How could you prevent abuse of those laws in order to suppress unpopular or otherwise subversive speech? In other words, it might sound like a good idea, but there's absolutely no way to prevent a legal standard that does not stem from actual or credible harm from being abused by the powerful to suppress the powerless.
    • mr_toad 9y ago
      The US government doesn’t need hate speech laws to abuse & suppress unpopular speech, the just use national security laws: http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_federal_bureau_of_investigation_fbi/ http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encycloped...
• syshum 9y ago
  a "True Threat" is not deemed a free speech violation because one is not preventing speech, but are preventing action. a "True Threat" is a threat of ACTION not a speech. I.e. if a person is in their garage, they have bomb making materials all around them, and make a threat to bomb a location at a specific time, date, they have now made a threat of ACTION thus it becomes an ACTIONABLE item for law enforcement This is often used by people that advocate for censorship as a "limit on free speech" but it is not, it is a limit on actions, we have always had limits on actions