4 ms·
Telling someone to grab an electric fence is not violence by anyone’s standard. Nor is shouting fire. As a society, we have never considered those utterances to
by lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Telling someone to grab an electric fence is not violence by anyone’s standard. Nor is shouting fire. As a society, we have never considered those utterances to be violent crime.
- joe_the_user 6y agoYou are incorrect here. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one litmus test for speech not protected by the 1st Amendment. And telling someone to grab a wire that you know is electrified and they don't is pretty violent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- arminiusreturns 6y agoHow many times do we have to go over the fact that the fire issue is actually proves the point. It was a bad ruling used to silence Yiddish WW1 protestors that referenced that hypothetical in the first place! So tired of seeing this regurgitated so much.
- airtonix 6y agoagain. wrong.
- dahfizz 6y agoYou seem to be equating unprotected speech with violence. Perjury is also not protected under the 1st Amendment but there's nothing violent about it. The only speech I would consider to even approach violence is a direct threat. And even that isn't really violence - it's the threat of violence.
- nobody9999 6y ago>The only speech I would consider to even approach violence is a direct threat. And even that isn't really violence - it's the threat of violence. And credible threats of violence aren't protected speech either.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoYou seem to be agreeing with me. Replied to wrong comment? We’re saying the same thing.
- nobody9999 6y ago>"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one litmus test Nitpick: It's not "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" it's "Falsely Shouting fire in a crowded theater" If there were a fire, I'd certainly want to know about it, wouldn't you?
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoYou are incorrect here. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one litmus test for speech not protected by the 1st Amendment. How does this contradict anything I said? I said it was not violent. It isn’t.
- camelite 6y agoYour syllogism goes something like this: Shouting fire is speech. Shouting fire is illegal Violence is illegal. Therefore spec is violence. I don't even know where to begin picking it apart. It has the -form- of an argument, but... These are strange times.