3 ms·
For convenience of argument I will retract the child porn example, but "conspiring", "shouting" and "advocating" are much closer to a common-sense understanding
by waqf 15y ago
For convenience of argument I will retract the child porn example, but "conspiring", "shouting" and "advocating" are much closer to a common-sense understanding of the word "speech" than is "walking around with [any particular symbol] on your arm".
Unless you totally missed the words "conspire" and "advocate" in my post, I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say.
- tedunangst 15y agoAfter you conspire to blow up an airliner, people die. After denying the Holocaust, nobody dies.
- waqf 15y agoConspiracy does not mean that you carried out the act, or even that you tried to. Besides, people die after someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, but it's still speech.
- mhd 15y agoTo take this a bit ad absurdum, so is ordering someone to kill someone else (or a few hundred). I think we shouldn't confuse the dictionary with a legal text.
- waqf 15y agoGood example (I think it's most similar to "conspiracy", though it might depend on what kind of implicit threat is backing up the "order"). btw, I'm not necessarily advocating free speech at all costs. If I'm going after anyone in this thread, it's the U.S. for hypocritically advertising "WE H4Ve phR33 5P34CH!!! unlike u european 1o5erz" and not being upfront about how delicate the line is.
- mhd 15y agoDoesn't the crime of conspiracy at least require one overt act?
- waqf 15y agoGood call, but in the U.S., according to Wikipedia: "The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative prerogative whether to require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute." So conspiracy without an overt act is not constitutionally protected.