6 ms·
> Free speech is more than just an amendment to the constitution. It is also a doctrine that knowledge and discussion should generally be free, and that people
by burnte 4y ago
> Free speech is more than just an amendment to the constitution. It is also a doctrine that knowledge and discussion should generally be free, and that people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs.
Should be persecuted BY THE GOVERNMENT. At no point has any nation held that all people should be able to say whatever they want at any time with zero repercussions from anywhere. You can yell in a crowded theater, and they can kick you out. If you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you're arrested for the panic, not the fact you spoke, but for the fact you put people in potential danger. But if you only yell some racial slur, for example, no one will arrest you for the slur, but you can be asked to leave the theater and never return because that's private property.
Freedom of speech is not and has never been freedom from consequences.
- richbell 4y ago> If you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you're arrested for the panic, not the fact you spoke, but for the fact you put people in potential danger. This analogy was created in an attempt to outlaw people speaking against the draft. My understanding is that it was overturned and is no longer considered a relevant example on the test of free speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
- foldr 4y agoI don’t think that’s relevant. The point is just that you really can’t shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre and use a free speech defense to escape responsibility for your actions. Various other scenarios may or may not have been found to be legally analogous to this one by various courts. Nonetheless, the example still serves to illustrate the limits of free speech. To put it another way, Brandenburg v. Ohio didn’t find that it actually is ok to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. Rather, it found that a particular instance of speech wasn’t analogous to that example.
- richbell 4y agoIt is relevant if the courts later overturned the decision and it is now considered free speech. I get your point, it's just a bad example given the historical baggage.
- foldr 4y agoAFAIK the courts did not find this. After all, they were not considering the case of someone who shouted ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. If someone actually did this and people died as a result (e.g. in a stampede), it seems highly unlikely that a free speech defense could be used.
- Dylan16807 4y ago> It is relevant if the courts later overturned the decision and it is now considered free speech. Since "it" is the draft stuff, not shouting fire, it's only mildly sometimes relevant.
- semiquaver 4y agoThe analogy itself is dicta: part of the decision’s explanation and commentary; not a statement of law or binding precedent. Therefore not something that can be overturned in the subsequent case.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoWhat is “the government” in a democracy?
- burnte 4y agoThe government apparatus, as only that has the power to fine you, jail you, etc.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoOk, and how is being fined by a government materially different from being intimated and canceled by a mob? And why would the approaches to them be different if, presumably, both represent the people?
- burnte 4y agoMost people are fairly aware that context matters. What's illegal in one context is perfectly legal in another. These are two very different contexts.
- byyll 4y ago
- burnte 4y ago> So the freedom of speech of the group of people on twitter is not freedom from the consequence of "doxxing". No one is ever free of consequences with respect to free speech. I can march around a college town with a tiki torch yelling racist bullshit, and if I make the news and get fired, that's just how it goes. Don't say anything on twitter you wouldn't otherwise say in public to strangers.