3 ms·

Why is this a "joke"? Does a gaggle of teenagers running into a movie theater and yelling "fire!" constitute a joke? People might get seriously injured in the

Why is this a "joke"? Does a gaggle of teenagers running into a movie theater and yelling "fire!" constitute a joke? People might get seriously injured in the ensuing chaos. The same is (almost) true here, people lost money because of a tweet that was Musk was prohibited from making by law. There need to be consequences.

burke 8y ago
There's no amusement in yelling "fire!" in a theatre unless you enjoy watching people panic. I can imagine this striking him as "haha, wouldn't it be funny if..." and tweeting it out without thinking. I don't think that makes it okay, but it's easy to imagine it not being motivated by the same psychopathic intention as yelling "fire!" in a theatre. I'm not defending his behaviour; I guess part of my unease here comes from how a lot of people treat twitter as an externalized stream of consciousness, and how that has a strange interaction, especially with things like SEC rules.
djsumdog 8y ago
Please don't use the "fire in theatre" argument. It is one of the most misused arguments because yelling fire in a theatre, under Schenck v. United States, is (sorta) protected speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- henryfjordan 8y ago
  The article you quoted directly contradicts your assertion. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States > The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional > the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging men to resist induction Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio > The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- aquadrop 8y ago
  Not everyone lives in USA.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

burke 8y ago

There's no amusement in yelling "fire!" in a theatre unless you enjoy watching people panic. I can imagine this striking him as "haha, wouldn't it be funny if..." and tweeting it out without thinking. I don't think that makes it okay, but it's easy to imagine it not being motivated by the same psychopathic intention as yelling "fire!" in a theatre. I'm not defending his behaviour; I guess part of my unease here comes from how a lot of people treat twitter as an externalized stream of consciousness, and how that has a strange interaction, especially with things like SEC rules.

djsumdog 8y ago

Please don't use the "fire in theatre" argument. It is one of the most misused arguments because yelling fire in a theatre, under Schenck v. United States, is (sorta) protected speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

henryfjordan 8y ago
The article you quoted directly contradicts your assertion. from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States > The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional > the First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging men to resist induction Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio > The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
aquadrop 8y ago
Not everyone lives in USA.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]