3 ms·
> Then I'd say is some kind of speech, and therefore should be protected. Speech causing immediate harm to others is explicitly not protected. If you want to
by pengaru 3y ago
> Then I'd say is some kind of speech, and therefore should be protected.
Speech causing immediate harm to others is explicitly not protected. If you want to interpret rolling coal as political speech, directing it at pedestrians/cyclists et al is clearly not a protected form of it.
- csdvrx 3y agoUnlike screaming fire in a crowded theater, it's not causing immediate harm: maybe it's causing long term harm, but that's not enough to remove the free speech protection.
- pengaru 3y ago> Unlike screaming fire in a crowded theater, it's not causing immediate harm: maybe it's causing long term, but that's not enough to remove the free speech protection. It's ok to be wrong.