When I say "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" I mean "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" and not "freedom to hand out fliers informing people that the draft is illegal involuntary servitude".

https://x.com/raffysoanti/status/1403093629086965760

▲

somenameforme 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't matter what you think such a restriction means. What matters is what politicians would use it for. That's why this is such a beautifully ironic quote, because when I say the right to ban such speech would open the door to abuse, I don't need to draw on hypotheticals.

The quote is literally part of the government's [successful] argument that their right to imprison somebody for shouting fire in a crowded theater naturally grants them the right to imprison somebody for handing out informative fliers that run contrary to warmonger interests.

There's no stronger argument for free speech means free speech than the quote you chose.

▲

immibis a day ago | parent [-]

So you do believe everyone should have the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell FIRE! and this should be constitutionally protected, because if there's any speech that isn't constitutionally protected, no speech is constitutionally protected?

What about the speech of "I will pay you $50 to stab that guy right now"? Constitutionally protected or do you believe that should be past a limit?

▲

somenameforme a day ago | parent [-]

The consequences of an action can be prohibited without touching the action itself. For instance most of every state has laws against signaling a false alarm. It doesn't matter whether you do that by triggering a fire alarm, playing an extremely loud fire alarm type sound, shouting fire, or whatever else - it's all illegal.

Not only does this prevent trampling on speech and minimize abuse, but it's also far more to the point. Because why is shouting fire uniquely awful while shouting penis is just some kids being annoying that should simply be kicked out of a theater? It's not because of the words obviously, but because of the consequence created.

▲

immibis 21 hours ago | parent [-]

If there was a law against forming a suicide cult you'd still count it as a first amendment violation since cults are formed using speech, right?

I think it should be illegal to spread Nazism, but Nazism is spread using speech so people keep telling me that would be a first amendment violation.

▲

somenameforme 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Absolutely, those are great examples of things that are protected by free speech. When the ACLU was at the height of its reputation, and the US at the height of its soft power, we even had things like the ACLU defending the right of a literal nazi group to stage a march. And the various death cults the US has had were also all operating completely legally.

The paradox of tolerance is largely nonsensical, because the key to a free society is free speech but stringent, and blind, enforcement against actions. Somebody can larp out with their swastikas and roman salutes all they want, but the second they lay hands on anybody - they're going to have a few years in a cage to rethink their life decisions. If they repeat this onto a third time, the key gets thrown away.

In general I think that the liberties of the worst of society work in many ways like a canary in the coalmine for the rest of us. As soon as that canary dies it's not long before your government, with its 29% approval rating, is trying to do things like ban the highest polling party in the country under ridiculous mental gymnastics that, in reality, come down to little more than 'we want to stay in power.'

	▲	int_19h 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I would also add that, once they do lay their hands on someone (or actively conspire to), I think it's perfectly fine to respond with heftier penalties if the motivation for it is Nazi ideology or other similar stuff. It's not a free speech matter at that point.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]