3 ms·
Then you're going against a hundred years of legal thought on free speech there. There's a reason certain speech is not protected, and it's been hashed out. if
by montagg 6y ago
Then you're going against a hundred years of legal thought on free speech there. There's a reason certain speech is not protected, and it's been hashed out. if you have a better legal argument than "it's just not," I'm interested, but it needs to address why previous thinking is incorrect. Edit: a [quick link][1] to all the types of speech in the US that is regulated and why.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_speech_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...
- sethammons 6y agoSearched for 'violence' and derivative forms in that wiki link: > limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for ... protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons. The speech is not violent. However, we can say that speech that promotes such might not be allowed under "free speech." Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not violent though it can cause people to panic and cause harm.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoWhat does this have to do with what I said? Why do you think I said anything about what is protected? We are arguing about the definition of the word violence.