3 ms·

> you're comparing speech to actions other than speech in order to justify that speech being curtailed because you don't like it I think it's more than this. T

• brigandish 5y ago
  > When someone's speech is actively dangerous, it makes sense to block it I can see a thousand ways that could be misused in the aid of authoritarianism. Try speaking it in a German accent, perhaps with "vhere iz your mister Churchill?", and I'm sure you'll see the problem. > akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater That was the example given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr for the clear and present danger test[1] in Schenk vs United States[2]: > The ruling established that Congress has more latitude in limiting speech in times of war than in peacetime and set out the clear and present danger test, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. indicated that the most stringent interpretations of the First Amendment would not protect a person who causes public panic by shouting “Fire!” in a theater when no fire exists. I don't see how that test would apply to Trump, even in wartime. [1] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-prese... [2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-united-states https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/193/schenck-v-unite...