3 ms·

You have a profound misunderstanding of free speech rights in the U.S. Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash everything!" Bu

You have a profound misunderstanding of free speech rights in the U.S. Yes, you cannot incite a riot. You cannot say "My followers: Riot! Smash everything!" But because something you say could or does cause a riot is not reason enough to ban your speech. Otherwise you get something like the so-called "Heckler's Veto", whereby people who merely disagree with your speech can make themselves enough of a nuisance to have it silenced.

ck2 14y ago
So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?
- twoodfin 14y ago
  So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people. Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube? Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
  - ck2 14y ago
    What's the direct harm if I post naked pictures of consenting adults on my porch for the neighborhood to see? There's no direct harm right? But it's not protected free speech - it has limitations. You do realize the video in question was heavily edited to change dialog and things like blackboards were switched out. So it was purposely tailored to cause a reaction - incite a physical reaction.
Symmetry 14y ago
IANAL, but I think the test is "intended to cause, and likely to cause, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action". In which case deliberately showing this video to a crowd of already angry Muslims might qualify, but just putting it up on YouTube wouldn't.

ck2 14y ago

So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube?

twoodfin 14y ago
So they can tiptoe around exact instructions and say "watch this and then decide what punishment you should inflict" ? Now you're starting to shade things into a gray area. At some point you need a judge or jury to decide whether speech is incitement to violence or not. And I don't believe the video in question is (even obliquely) advocating any particular action. It's just grossly offensive to some people. Why are people picking youtube videos as freedom-of-speech and not the right to joke about their suitcase being a bomb to the TSA at the airport? Why is that censorship okay and not youtube? Like your other examples of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or threatening the President, there are certain forms of "expression" that can be restricted or punished, not because they're expressing particular ideas, but because they have a direct, causal connection to harm. You can come up with a thousand examples: It's not "free speech" for a doctor to write you a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug. It's not "free speech" for a police officer to tell you you're obligated to talk to him without a lawyer. It's not "free speech" to lie on the witness stand. "Free speech" doesn't mean you can't be punished or restricted from saying anything, but it does mean that absent any direct harm to the rights of others, you're free to express ideas in any reasonable manner. This shouldn't be too hard to understand.
- ck2 14y ago
  What's the direct harm if I post naked pictures of consenting adults on my porch for the neighborhood to see? There's no direct harm right? But it's not protected free speech - it has limitations. You do realize the video in question was heavily edited to change dialog and things like blackboards were switched out. So it was purposely tailored to cause a reaction - incite a physical reaction.

Symmetry 14y ago

IANAL, but I think the test is "intended to cause, and likely to cause, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action". In which case deliberately showing this video to a crowd of already angry Muslims might qualify, but just putting it up on YouTube wouldn't.