Freedom of speech is most certainly not absolute, not even in the US. Try yelling "I have a bomb" in a crowded theater.

Wrong. No one will be prosecuted for a crime of saying anything. A person can be held criminally responsible for saying something that incites others to imminent lawless action, causing others to break the law... like starting a riot... but since 1969, it is not a crime to say anything that merely causes panic.

 

Freedom of speech is most certainly not absolute, not even in the US. Try yelling "I have a bomb" in a crowded theater.

Wrong. No one will be prosecuted for a crime of saying anything. A person can be held criminally responsible for saying something that incites others to imminent lawless action, causing others to break the law... like starting a riot... but since 1969, it is not a crime to say anything that merely causes panic.

 

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inducing-panic/

 

Well, I guess it varies from state to state (like almost everything), but it seems to at least be a misdemeanor in most places. I'm willing to bet that if someone gets hurt in a "prank" like this, the charges can stack up pretty quickly.

It's nothing like Hogwarts, where it's forbidden to say Voldemort. It's not a crime to say, yell, or write anything... truth or lies. We can be held criminally responsible for effects of our freedom of speech. It's not a good thing to talk people into killing themselves.

Oh for the love of. No that is exactly  what a restriction on speech looks like lys. What you are describing is the *rationale* for that restriction. 

 

 

 

If you can be held criminally responsible for your speech, that is a restriction on your speech.

 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

What part of "Shall make no law abridging" do you think is compatible with "congress has passed a law such that you will be imprisoned for saying this specific thing". Either you think the first amendment is entirely toothless (sure congress can't make a law restricting your speech, but they can punish you for the consequences of it.) or the firstadmentment has value, but limitations on how far it extends. 

 

Have a bunch of quotes from the US surpeme court detailing acceptable restrictions freedom of speech.  Emphasis mine 

 

Schenck v. United States

 

Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.

 

 

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc

 

We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust? and wide-open" debate on public issues.

 

Miller v. Californa

 

Under a National Constitution, fundamental First Amendment limitations on the powers of the States do not vary from community to community, but this does not mean that there are, or should or can be, fixed, uniform national standards of precisely what appeals to the "prurient interest" or is "patently offensive." These are essentially questions of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite consensus exists. When triers of fact are asked to decide whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would consider certain materials "prurient," it would be unrealistic to require that the answer be based on some abstract formulation. The adversary system, with lay jurors as the usual ultimate factfinders in criminal prosecutions, has historically permitted triers of fact to draw on the standards of their community, guided always by limiting instructions on the law. To require a State to structure obscenity proceedings around evidence of a national "community standard" would be an exercise in futility.

 

 

New York v. Ferber.

 

 

When a definable class of material, such as that covered by the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection.

 

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. 

 

I could go on for a while, the supreme court has consistently ruled that there are exceptions and limitations to the first amendment (and to every other amendment within the bill of rights) for centuries. Some forms of speech are not protected under the first amendment, full stop. 

Thank you for taking so much time researching a stupid conversation, about meaningless drivel, only to reinforce my point. I know you are well aware that it's not a crime to say the President is a Racist Nazi. You probably have done it yourself a few times during the past couple of years. It doesn't matter if it's a lie... which it is... and everyone knows it's defamatory. Is anyone going to prison for it? No.

 

Since 1969, government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". That's the red line, and it's never been seriously challenged.

 

All the rest that you labored to paste has everything to do with cases that prove malice and damages, in short... I can say Voldemort all I want, but if someone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that because I said Voldemort, Road2Victory shot himself in the head. I would be facing some fashion of a manslaughter charge.

 

...and I can still say Voldemort, anytime I want.

By this logic, I can go murdering people all I want, unless someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I was responsible for their deaths. Then I would be facing murder charges. But yeah, if I'm willing to put up with the repercussions prescribed by the law, I can just go ahead and do it

By this logic, I can go murdering people all I want, unless someone proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I was responsible for their deaths.

Yes. You got the logic right. This is exactly the way it really is. We have people that murder all they want until they are caught. Then we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they killed all those people. Then, if they are in the right state, and after around 20 years of appeals, we can kill them with lethal injection, cyanide gas, firing squad, hanging, or electric chair. They are called "serial killers".

ITT, freedom of speech is actually freedom to produce pressure waves in air.

 

You can make sound, but we will be darn well prosecute you for the meaning behind that sound!

ITT, freedom of speech is actually freedom to produce pressure waves in air.

 

You can make sound, but we will be darn well prosecute you for the meaning behind that sound!

 

Haha, nice!

 

But wait, now we get to the part where I explain that when you hear me say "I want to kill the President", I actually mean "I want bring flowers to the President". It's just that in my vocabulary "kill" means "bring flowers". If you understand it differently, that's your problem, I'm free to use any word in any sense I wish. It's the freedom of speech!

But wait, now we get to the part where I explain that when you hear me say "I want to kill the President", I actually mean "I want bring flowers to the President". It's just that in my vocabulary "kill" means "bring flowers". If you understand it differently, that's your problem, I'm free to use any word in any sense I wish. It's the freedom of speech!

You are starting to get it. We also have the freedom to be misunderstood. Happens to me all the time. I'm strongly against Affirmative Action, and I'm constantly accused of being a racist because of that. Any time government steps in and creates a law to bestow a preference to anyone based on the color of their skin... that is what is racist. I'm strongly in favor of Voter ID laws, and I am constantly accused of being a racist, when I only want secure and honest elections. Just a couple of examples of our freedom to misunderstand. The difference is I can handle it... I don't need a safe space, therapy, or a comfort animal. I'm just fine with being an American.

You are conflating things here. A stance on policy, such as Affirmative Action and voter ID has nothing to do with someone making up purely fictional stories in order to manipulate the public "in the name of free speech"!

 

On the other hand, I completely agree what you said about Affirmative Action being racist, and it always baffles me how the US lacks a centralized Citizen ID system, that includes...well...every citizen regardless of economic status.

 

 

You are conflating things here.

Maybe... but you can't restrict one type of speech without compromising others. There have been many times that some people thought what someone was saying was a bunch of lies when it turned out to be true. Edward Snowden comes to mind. There was another time when someone said that our beachfront property would be under water by now... that was bullshit.

 

So in reality... you will all owe Alex Jones a huge apology if what he believes turns out to be true. I have a pretty big problem when big bullies try to shut anyone up. Along with freedom of speech and freedom to be misunderstood... we also have the freedom to believe what we want, and the freedom to be stupid enough to believe anything we hear.

Maybe... but you can't restrict one type of speech without compromising others.

As I said before, restricting is not the way to go. But to inoculate against it...absolutely!

 

 

As I said before, restricting is not the way to go. But to inoculate against it...absolutely!

Be careful Dude. People will see this and go running to their Doctor pushing for that new speech vaccine.

 

As I said before, restricting is not the way to go. But to inoculate against it...absolutely!

Be careful Dude. People will see this and go running to their Doctor pushing for that new speech vaccine.

 

 

I bet some actually would   

As much as I hate Alex Jones for trying to take advantage of people's stupidity and his seeming lack of conscience about this.. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFIlOS2hGs&t=268s

Now that was an amazing post... thank you so much for that Canik

No problem! Happy to share it and spread awareness of this channel which, IMO, has some of the most unbiased and geniune reporting out there.

ITT, americans have freedom to have freedom, they just don't get that freedom^TM is out of their reach anyway.

 

Otherwise, libertarians don't know they are libertarian in group, which would scare the crap out of them.

I don't like companies steering the course of the conversation. The only people who would watch him were those who were interested in him. Why should does google or any company regulate that?

Edited August 27, 20188 yr by Fermion