4 ms·

Is the line, then, just between commands and non-commands? Are "all the Jews should be killed" or "Jews cannot be alive" significantly different from "Kill the

• sgrove 17y ago
  I suppose, since I haven't studied law as much as I should have, that there is an already established set of guidelines. If I were coming up with an admittedly vague rule-of-thumb off the top of my head, I think the line would be speech advocating or intended to likely lead to the immediate harm of any individual or group would not fall under protected speech. And, looking it up on wikipedia, it seems that there is indeed already a set of guidelines. John Stuart Mill introduced "the harm principle": "John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."...However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Makes sense to me, and should be used as the guiding principle. As swombat pointed out below, there are cases where the replies were simply advocating hard to a group of people. That's easy enough to take off. Holocaust denial isn't so clear.
• youngian 17y ago
  Here's a nice rundown of US law on free speech: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677 http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=21677 "...Ohio law punished mere advocacy and failed to distinguish between abstract advocacy and true incitement to imminent lawless action."