3 ms·
Included "directly" very intentionally. I'm of the mind set that you never give government subjective authority over something. You put up very strict guardra
by djschnei 8y ago
Included "directly" very intentionally. I'm of the mind set that you never give government subjective authority over something. You put up very strict guardrails for their power. "Indirectly harming others" is way too subjective and leaves far too much room for abuse of power/corruption. I don't judge laws by their best meant intentions, but by their worst case scenarios.
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y agoI would say harm vs. not harm is much less subjective than direct harm vs. indirect harm. Is yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater direct or indirect harm? Defining that seems much trickier than just defining whether it's harm.
- djschnei 8y ago"No direct Harm Vs. Harm" is essentially "No Harm Vs. Harm". The "direct" is only included to limit it's interpretations or to be more specific. Proving "direct harm", in this case, is proving "harm". Without being able to prove a direct causal relationship, the government would have no justification to act. Inaccurately and purposefully yelling "fire!" in a crowded space is a direct attempt to cause panic. In other words, you would never be prosecuted for yelling "fire!" in a crowded space when there actually was a fire. It is not the act of yelling "fire!" that is illegal, it is purposefully causing a false panic that is illegal.