2 ms·
They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases. They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I sai
by rlpb 15y ago
They are equivalent in that "freedom of speech" is not absolute but has restrictions in specific cases.
They clearly aren't the same though, which is why I said that you can disagree on the specifics.
> One is an expression of ideas, the other is an incitement of panic.
This is pure sophistry. I could just as well argue that I wanted to express the idea that there might be a fire. That it incites panic is secondary, just as inciting racial hatred might incite violence. You are still welcome to disagree, but you've failed to make an argument.
- defen 15y agoThe difference is that the rational response to "Fire!" is to get the hell out of there as fast as possible, which could lead to injuries etc. (Let's not derail into a prisoner's dilemma discussion about how the "real" rational response is for everyone to make an orderly exit). Anyone who partook in a panicked escape from a purported fire would not be held responsible for incidentally trampling other people who were also trying to escape. On the other hand, the rational response to hearing someone "incite racial hatred" is not to go out and start committing crimes against people belonging to that group.