3 ms·

> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in any

> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire. This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> This is from a dissenting opinion of a US Supreme Court justice No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.
potato3732842 1y ago
> yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  Child pornography
  - jszymborski 1y ago
    Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      So are videos of people being punched and stabbed. Those are legal
      - jszymborski 1y ago
        The sharing and owning of those videos aren't part of the violence as they are with CSAM. That feels evident, right?
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        Can you explain why?
ambicapter 1y ago
Maybe people keep using it because it makes a lot of sense to them, whether or not it's accepted (US) case law or not.
jszymborski 1y ago
Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Regardless, incitement remains an exception to free speech the world over to some degree. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that incitement to discrimination is prohibited, for example [0]. My point stands, people of most societies globally believe certain speech should not be protected. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...

dragonwriter 1y ago

> This is from a dissenting opinion of a US Supreme Court justice No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.

potato3732842 1y ago

> yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.

Braxton1980 1y ago
Child pornography
- jszymborski 1y ago
  Child sexual abuse material is evidence of violence, and act of violence, all at once.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    So are videos of people being punched and stabbed. Those are legal
    - jszymborski 1y ago
      The sharing and owning of those videos aren't part of the violence as they are with CSAM. That feels evident, right?
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        Can you explain why?

ambicapter 1y ago

Maybe people keep using it because it makes a lot of sense to them, whether or not it's accepted (US) case law or not.

jszymborski 1y ago

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. Regardless, incitement remains an exception to free speech the world over to some degree. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that incitement to discrimination is prohibited, for example [0]. My point stands, people of most societies globally believe certain speech should not be protected. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...