4 ms·
> I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof. That's still not th
by sillygoose 11y ago
> I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof.
That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater.
> All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said:
>> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh?
But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.
- Infernal 11y ago> That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against a certain type of speech because you've judged it to be the wrong kind of speech. Once you've set a precedent that the wrong kind of speech can be infringed, you no longer have free speech - you have a struggle for the power to define allowed speech and disallowed speech. It seems like you are unnecessarily conflating speech and the consequences of speech.