4 ms·

Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earne

by ArnoVW 6y ago

Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon.

kansface 6y ago
Free speech exists in the public square, not on a W2 (you could claim you earned $0 last year all you want, just not to the IRS). In the cases of fraud/libel, the specifics matter. > it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line. Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and hear. I am unwilling to let the government make that determination on my behalf. > Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon. Private citizens (presumably including the founding fathers) actually used to own canons before the creation of a permanent, federal army!
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  Interestingly, muzzle loaded cannons of that era, whether genuine or replica, are still legal to own in the US without a license as they are considered antiques.
chillacy 6y ago
American free speech is way more broad than European free speech, they’re different legally. You could have a similar argument between American freedom of religion and French “freedom from religion”. Not an apples to apples comparison.
tdons 6y ago
Christopher Hitchens (a Brit, can we still call them European?) would disagree with you. If you have a few minutes, check the beginning of this talk [1] about free speech. He treats the exact "fire" example at the very start of the talk :-) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
- foldr 6y ago
  Hitchens isn't exactly covering himself with glory here. On multiple occasions he defended David Irving's historical work (and not merely his right to publish it).
nobody9999 6y ago
>I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon. As an American, I know that even in the US, free speech is not absolute, nor has it ever been. And all the things you mention are, in context, crimes here in the US as well. One of the big differences in the US (not sure about France/The Netherlands), but in the UK it's much easier to prove libel/defamation than it is here. I actually could say you robbed me yesterday, but if I didn't file a police report alleging that, it would be difficult for you to successfully sue me over it. Because you would have to prove that I knowingly did so and not only intended to cause injury, I actually did cause injury. However, if I filed a false police report, I could be prosecuted for that -- and if you suffered some injury because I did (arrest/imprisonment, loss of job, etc.), you could likely win a libel/defamation lawsuit. If there are people who tell you otherwise, they're either ignorant/uninformed or just lying.

by ArnoVW 6y ago

kansface 6y ago

Free speech exists in the public square, not on a W2 (you could claim you earned $0 last year all you want, just not to the IRS). In the cases of fraud/libel, the specifics matter. > it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line. Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and hear. I am unwilling to let the government make that determination on my behalf. > Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon. Private citizens (presumably including the founding fathers) actually used to own canons before the creation of a permanent, federal army!

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
Interestingly, muzzle loaded cannons of that era, whether genuine or replica, are still legal to own in the US without a license as they are considered antiques.

chillacy 6y ago

American free speech is way more broad than European free speech, they’re different legally. You could have a similar argument between American freedom of religion and French “freedom from religion”. Not an apples to apples comparison.

tdons 6y ago

Christopher Hitchens (a Brit, can we still call them European?) would disagree with you. If you have a few minutes, check the beginning of this talk [1] about free speech. He treats the exact "fire" example at the very start of the talk :-) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

foldr 6y ago
Hitchens isn't exactly covering himself with glory here. On multiple occasions he defended David Irving's historical work (and not merely his right to publish it).

nobody9999 6y ago

>I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon. As an American, I know that even in the US, free speech is not absolute, nor has it ever been. And all the things you mention are, in context, crimes here in the US as well. One of the big differences in the US (not sure about France/The Netherlands), but in the UK it's much easier to prove libel/defamation than it is here. I actually could say you robbed me yesterday, but if I didn't file a police report alleging that, it would be difficult for you to successfully sue me over it. Because you would have to prove that I knowingly did so and not only intended to cause injury, I actually did cause injury. However, if I filed a false police report, I could be prosecuted for that -- and if you suffered some injury because I did (arrest/imprisonment, loss of job, etc.), you could likely win a libel/defamation lawsuit. If there are people who tell you otherwise, they're either ignorant/uninformed or just lying.