5 ms·

Järlström didn't claim he was a Professional Engineer (a very specific certification) just an engineer. This case is akin to someone who does wood working in t

Järlström didn't claim he was a Professional Engineer (a very specific certification) just an engineer. This case is akin to someone who does wood working in their house (maybe even studied it) calling themselves a carpenter but not a Licensed Carpenter. Speech can never be a crime "They have uttered the untoward words! Imprison them." Speech can breach a contract "You agreed not to yell fire in my theater, you owe me damages"

lsiebert 8y ago
Yelling fire(falsely) in a theater wasn't an example of breach of contract that is prohibited by a private agreement, but an understanding that the government has the right to prohibit speech made with the specific intent to create criminal harm. It's also not, as far as I understand, not the current legal standard, as of 2010's Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.
learc83 8y ago
>Speech can never be a crime Speech can be a crime. Google limitations on free speech. The specific example you gave is in fact a crime.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime, not merely saying the words. Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing. I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Intent is a necessary component of the crime, just like intent is necessary component of most crimes. The intent to cause harm is not the crime. >Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing. Actions in themselves aren't universally crimes in all contexts, that doesn't mean they aren't crimes in specific contexts. If what you are trying to argue is that no string of words can be a crime to utter in any context, then yes you are correct, but by that standard no individual action can be labeled criminal. >I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own. SCOTUS has ruled many times that all speech isn't protected by the first amendment. Some speech can be made, and has been made criminal.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

lsiebert 8y ago

Yelling fire(falsely) in a theater wasn't an example of breach of contract that is prohibited by a private agreement, but an understanding that the government has the right to prohibit speech made with the specific intent to create criminal harm. It's also not, as far as I understand, not the current legal standard, as of 2010's Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.

learc83 8y ago

>Speech can never be a crime Speech can be a crime. Google limitations on free speech. The specific example you gave is in fact a crime.

WilliamEdward 8y ago
But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime, not merely saying the words. Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing. I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own.
- learc83 8y ago
  >But in this case the intent is to cause harm which is a crime This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Intent is a necessary component of the crime, just like intent is necessary component of most crimes. The intent to cause harm is not the crime. >Thats why the crime is "yelling fire in a crowded theater" not just "yelling fire". Notice the difference and how it becomes a completely different action altogether despite saying the same thing. Actions in themselves aren't universally crimes in all contexts, that doesn't mean they aren't crimes in specific contexts. If what you are trying to argue is that no string of words can be a crime to utter in any context, then yes you are correct, but by that standard no individual action can be labeled criminal. >I don't think it's fair to say speech can be a crime on its own. SCOTUS has ruled many times that all speech isn't protected by the first amendment. Some speech can be made, and has been made criminal.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]