3 ms·
Your argument is that the 1st Amendment is not one of the strongest legal protection of speech in the world? I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as
by educaysean 4y ago
Your argument is that the 1st Amendment is not one of the strongest legal protection of speech in the world?
I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as it pertains to free speech. Can you enlighten me in terms of how other countries provide legal protection for speech in a way that you perceive to be "stronger" than the U.S? I can't imagine a functioning code of laws that allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater whose nation isn't straight up incapable or corrupt.
- pessimizer 4y agoThe United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater, and I agree with your judgment on it (although not for your reason.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... edit: it's strange not to even be able to imagine the circumstances you are currently in.
- vba616 4y ago>The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater I don't understand. According to the article you yourself link to, the phrase, in the US, has been a metaphor for conduct not protected by the first amendment for over a hundred years. All that seems to have changed is the exact definition of "clear and present danger". Is there a case you know about where someone literally falsely yelled fire in a crowd and it was deemed protected speech in the US?
- Nasrudith 4y agoIt was a metaphor used to defend calling protesting World War 1 and the draft dangerous lawlessness conduct. It is a horrible metaphor. I would imagine any play about the Chicago fire would be an example, let alone firing squads.