4 ms·

"Free speech" is a very nuanced term. You can't shout "fire" in a crowd unless there's a fire; and you can't force me to distribute anything. Traditional media

"Free speech" is a very nuanced term. You can't shout "fire" in a crowd unless there's a fire; and you can't force me to distribute anything. Traditional media (TV, Newspapers, Radio, Publishers) always use discretion about what they print and broadcast. A TV station deciding not to broadcast something, or a publisher declining to publish something, is not censorship. IMO, Social Media is not like a generic web hosting company. They can use a lot more discretion in what they publish, how they publish it, who they show it to, and what context they put it in. To be quite honest, I honestly believe Facebook needs to be more proactive in curtailing misinformation. Calling lack of discretion over what they promote in feeds "Free speech" is ruse to try and distract people from their poor credibility. Nothing's blocking Trump from creating his own website where he can say whatever he wants.

EGreg 6y ago
I remember seeing that “yelling fire in a crowded theater” was technically untrue as it is usually presented. Anyone with more knowledge can elaborate?
- el_benhameen 6y ago
  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... and 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... are illuminating.
- brownra04 6y ago
  Here's a good summary: [1] Basically, the analogy of shouting "fire" in a theater was meant to illustrate the "clear and present danger" doctrine - if an act of speech could lead to clear and present danger which there were laws against, then the speech was not protected. What's false about this analogy is that the "clear and present danger" standard isn't the standard that speech is measured against today. Instead, speech is restricted according to the "imminent lawless action" doctrine, by which speech that could lead directly to people breaking the law is not protected. This was decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio[2], and the central tenet of the ruling is: "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action." Thus, standing on a street corner and praising the merits of rioting and damaging property might be protected speech if it was very unlikely for anyone to take those actions, but if you did it during a restless protest march the protections of free speech may not apply. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... [2]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    It's worth noting that the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" comes from a Supreme Court case in which the government imprisoned socialists for handing out flyers urging people not to submit to the draft during WWI.[1] It's one of the most infamous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, at one of the darkest hours in the history of the First Amendment. I think most people would be surprised to learn how far the Wilson administration went to suppress free speech during WWI. I had no idea until I read "The Great Influenza" (about the 1918 pandemic) recently. As an aside: the Espionage Act comes from that time, and is the law that was used to jail opponents of the draft back then. It's also the law being used to charge Assange today. 1. Schenck v. United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The short version: - It was a non-binding side comment (dicta) not particularly grounded in existing law on the decision it was presented. - It was presented in a decision that has since been overturned in effect which is notorious as one allowing government prosecution of core political speech “because socialism”.

EGreg 6y ago

I remember seeing that “yelling fire in a crowded theater” was technically untrue as it is usually presented. Anyone with more knowledge can elaborate?

el_benhameen 6y ago
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... and 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... are illuminating.
brownra04 6y ago
Here's a good summary: [1] Basically, the analogy of shouting "fire" in a theater was meant to illustrate the "clear and present danger" doctrine - if an act of speech could lead to clear and present danger which there were laws against, then the speech was not protected. What's false about this analogy is that the "clear and present danger" standard isn't the standard that speech is measured against today. Instead, speech is restricted according to the "imminent lawless action" doctrine, by which speech that could lead directly to people breaking the law is not protected. This was decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio[2], and the central tenet of the ruling is: "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action." Thus, standing on a street corner and praising the merits of rioting and damaging property might be protected speech if it was very unlikely for anyone to take those actions, but if you did it during a restless protest march the protections of free speech may not apply. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... [2]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  It's worth noting that the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" comes from a Supreme Court case in which the government imprisoned socialists for handing out flyers urging people not to submit to the draft during WWI.[1] It's one of the most infamous decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, at one of the darkest hours in the history of the First Amendment. I think most people would be surprised to learn how far the Wilson administration went to suppress free speech during WWI. I had no idea until I read "The Great Influenza" (about the 1918 pandemic) recently. As an aside: the Espionage Act comes from that time, and is the law that was used to jail opponents of the draft back then. It's also the law being used to charge Assange today. 1. Schenck v. United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
dragonwriter 6y ago
The short version: - It was a non-binding side comment (dicta) not particularly grounded in existing law on the decision it was presented. - It was presented in a decision that has since been overturned in effect which is notorious as one allowing government prosecution of core political speech “because socialism”.