3 ms·
> you would support the government making a blanket ban on all lies In theory, this law, if perfectly applied, would not be incompatible with my view of free
by Georgelemental 4y ago
> you would support the government making a blanket ban on all lies
In theory, this law, if perfectly applied, would not be incompatible with my view of free speech. In practice, such a law would be too broad, because determining whether something is true or not, and whether someone believes it or not, are hard problems that the justice system can't solve in general.
> It is certainly possible to frame opinions into those various categories.
It's possible to frame an opinion into any action, including straightforward murder. But no opinion requires an action in that group to express.
For the "it would be a shame if X" example, the crime is not the words or opinion. In fact, it's perfectly possible to use those same words legally, to express a genuine opinion that X would be bad! The crime is communicating a threat (which is not an opinion) via implication.
- slg 4y agoThe only action is the speech in some of those instances. For example, I have the opinion that politician X is evil and a threat to the country. I publicly declare this opinion by saying "any person who murders politician X would be a true patriot". I have committed no action beyond speech. My speech was purely an opinion. That is still an incitement to violence as it is an encouragement for others to commit a violent crime.
- Georgelemental 4y agoMy understanding is, under the precedent set by Brandenburg v. Ohio, the example you give is considered protected speech. "Anyone who murders politician X this Friday, at 4PM EST when he plans to be at this adress, would be a true patriot" is not protected, however; it goes beyond opinion to actual planning of an imminent illegal act.