"Free speech absolutism" is itself a straw man. What is absolute is that political views, unpopular phrasing, profanity and racist language are absolutely protected. Words tending to cause immediate physical risk - yelling "fire" in a full movie house, for example, is not protected. It is not hard, but Prog seek to make it so.
"Free speech absolutism" is itself a straw man. What is absolute is that political views, unpopular phrasing, profanity and racist language are absolutely protected. Words tending to cause immediate physical risk - yelling "fire" in a full movie house, for example, is not protected. It is not hard, but Prog seek to make it so.
For the love of god, please do not use "fire in a theater" as not protected. It is sourced from an abysmal decision that even the author of it eventually thought better. It was in fact arguing for the suppression of political speech - criticizing the utterly un-necessary involvement of the United States in the Great War in Europe.
You CAN yell fire falsely in a crowded theater. You will be charged for causing a panic and likely be held for damages. Every moron that uses this is talking about sanctions a priori or for causing hurt feelings, not real damages.
Of course, you miss the concept. Perhaps intentionally. It does not matter the source of the "fire in a theater" concept, the point - over your head? - is that IT IS NOT PROTECTED. And yes, you can say whatever your want but some things will get you sanctioned. That means they are not "absolutely" protected.
Get it? Absolute versus not absolute. Or is this too hard. Perhaps I am a moron as you write. But even for a moron this is not hard. Where does that put you?
The source/context is everything. The idiot phrase was written during the justification of suppressing political speech. You can't divorce it from that.
I love Christopher Hitchens. Thanks for that link. He is one of the greatest polemicists of all time. I truly did love the guy.
Sadly, despite your profane and offensive writing, two things are true: One, you and I seem closer in ideas than not and Two, you still don't get it. You keep setting up your own straw man arguments. Go back to my original post. Read it again. Maybe several times. Here is the point about "fire" in a theater. It "is not protected". I wrote nothing about gags, about pre-expression restrictions. I wrote about "protection". Again, I hope that is not a hard concept for you.
BTW, I may indeed be a moron, but you model levels below that on the Stanford-Binet scale. I'd hoped you did not occupy those realms, but it seems you might.
The point that Hitchens so eloquently makes is that there is no punishment for yelling fire.
Had he caused a stampede, which caused injuries, he could have been held liable for THAT, not for saying "fire".
You could at least use the example of slander to illustrate that speech that causes harm (even merely reputational) can be sanctioned - which means it isn't protected.
How refreshing to see someone actually understand the foolishness of the phrase. Whenever anyone uses that argument in discussions with me, I kindly remind them that we do not issue muzzles to people upon entering a theater.
Yes, you absolutely can yell "fire" in a crowded theater because nothing can actually prevent this. And as you so correctly pointed out, you are only sanctioned after the fact.
Also, the remedy that is desired to keep people from falsely yelling fire is to gag everyone before they take their seat in the theater. That way, no one can do it; then they can remove their gags upon leaving the theater (or not, after all, we wouldn't want them falsely yelling fire on the street either).
I don't believe this is a free speech issue. Falsely yelling fire is not speech which conveys any idea or thought - even one that is repugnant to most. It is a verbal act intended to cause harm. Pulling the fire alarm is equivalent to yelling fire - exactly the same quality and intention but done with a different body part - finger instead of vocal chords. Neither are free speech issues as neither do or are intended to convey any thought or idea. It is not protected speech in my country as it would be an act of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: "...Every one is criminally negligent who in DOING ANYTHING shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." Criminal acts are not free speech.
I would imagine that Holmes used the damnable phrase out of concern from the Italian Hall disaster, where a panic was created by falsely yelling fire (though not in a theater). The perpetrator was never apprehended let alone punished.
"Free speech absolutism" is itself a straw man. What is absolute is that political views, unpopular phrasing, profanity and racist language are absolutely protected. Words tending to cause immediate physical risk - yelling "fire" in a full movie house, for example, is not protected. It is not hard, but Prog seek to make it so.
For the love of god, please do not use "fire in a theater" as not protected. It is sourced from an abysmal decision that even the author of it eventually thought better. It was in fact arguing for the suppression of political speech - criticizing the utterly un-necessary involvement of the United States in the Great War in Europe.
You CAN yell fire falsely in a crowded theater. You will be charged for causing a panic and likely be held for damages. Every moron that uses this is talking about sanctions a priori or for causing hurt feelings, not real damages.
Of course, you miss the concept. Perhaps intentionally. It does not matter the source of the "fire in a theater" concept, the point - over your head? - is that IT IS NOT PROTECTED. And yes, you can say whatever your want but some things will get you sanctioned. That means they are not "absolutely" protected.
Get it? Absolute versus not absolute. Or is this too hard. Perhaps I am a moron as you write. But even for a moron this is not hard. Where does that put you?
The source/context is everything. The idiot phrase was written during the justification of suppressing political speech. You can't divorce it from that.
"The source/context is everything." and "You can't divorce it from that." But, but, but ... I just did that. Try to stay up. It is not that hard.
Then you are indeed a moron.
Just for you RBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
I love Christopher Hitchens. Thanks for that link. He is one of the greatest polemicists of all time. I truly did love the guy.
Sadly, despite your profane and offensive writing, two things are true: One, you and I seem closer in ideas than not and Two, you still don't get it. You keep setting up your own straw man arguments. Go back to my original post. Read it again. Maybe several times. Here is the point about "fire" in a theater. It "is not protected". I wrote nothing about gags, about pre-expression restrictions. I wrote about "protection". Again, I hope that is not a hard concept for you.
BTW, I may indeed be a moron, but you model levels below that on the Stanford-Binet scale. I'd hoped you did not occupy those realms, but it seems you might.
The point that Hitchens so eloquently makes is that there is no punishment for yelling fire.
Had he caused a stampede, which caused injuries, he could have been held liable for THAT, not for saying "fire".
You could at least use the example of slander to illustrate that speech that causes harm (even merely reputational) can be sanctioned - which means it isn't protected.
How refreshing to see someone actually understand the foolishness of the phrase. Whenever anyone uses that argument in discussions with me, I kindly remind them that we do not issue muzzles to people upon entering a theater.
Yes, you absolutely can yell "fire" in a crowded theater because nothing can actually prevent this. And as you so correctly pointed out, you are only sanctioned after the fact.
dammit, no edit! s/b "held liable for damages"
Also, the remedy that is desired to keep people from falsely yelling fire is to gag everyone before they take their seat in the theater. That way, no one can do it; then they can remove their gags upon leaving the theater (or not, after all, we wouldn't want them falsely yelling fire on the street either).
I don't believe this is a free speech issue. Falsely yelling fire is not speech which conveys any idea or thought - even one that is repugnant to most. It is a verbal act intended to cause harm. Pulling the fire alarm is equivalent to yelling fire - exactly the same quality and intention but done with a different body part - finger instead of vocal chords. Neither are free speech issues as neither do or are intended to convey any thought or idea. It is not protected speech in my country as it would be an act of CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE: "...Every one is criminally negligent who in DOING ANYTHING shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." Criminal acts are not free speech.
I would imagine that Holmes used the damnable phrase out of concern from the Italian Hall disaster, where a panic was created by falsely yelling fire (though not in a theater). The perpetrator was never apprehended let alone punished.
ЁЯСН