3 ms·
One might argue, in the US anyway, that free speech has explicit limits when harming the public: yelling "fire" in a theater is the classic example. Pushing an
by imglorp 6y ago
One might argue, in the US anyway, that free speech has explicit limits when harming the public: yelling "fire" in a theater is the classic example.
Pushing an agenda of literal chaos and death through theories like "it's only the flu" or "mask = oppression" is getting actual people killed, right now, by the thousands. Of course the devil is always in the details and the fuzzy lines.
- flyingfences 6y agoYelling "fire" in a theater is a classic misexample. 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...
- imglorp 6y agoGood article. It seems the 1969 test disallowed speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Encouraging people to violate mask orders would fit this definition.
- jpd- 6y agoPerhaps, if the speaker incited a crowd to remove their masks at a protest in a municipality in which not wearing a mask was illegal. Simply advocating that people violate mask orders doesn't pass the imminence test.
- jerkstate 6y agoHow would this statement apply to organizing mass protests during a pandemic? Would you be for or against censoring that type of speech?