[flagged]

People have the right to believe things that could get them killed and the right to share their beliefs with others.

Allowing the debate to be shut down is undemocratic and unscientific (science without question is nothing more than religion).

Not allowing people to come to different conclusions from the same data is tyranny.

	▲	mapontosevenths 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> People have the right to believe things that could get them killed and the right to share their beliefs with others. You're allowed to believe whatever you like. Selling horse paste and 5g shields to mental defectives on the internet and getting THEM killed is wrong.
	▲	13 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Bender 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pfizer hid a lot of the damage done as did the others. A lot of people can die by the time books come out. [1] That's one of the many reasons I held off and glad I did.

[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Pfizer-Papers-Pfizers-Against-Humanit...

	▲	mapontosevenths 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not every book that gets published is accurate, especially print on demand Amazon books with forwards by men like Bannon. You know how many excess deaths there have been among the vaccinated? Now compare that to the unavaccinated for the same period. Make the same comparison with disability if you'd like. That's all the evidence you need.

▲

immibis 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater being illegal was used to make it illegal to oppose the draft (Schenck v. United States). So actually, since opposing the draft is legal, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is legal too.

▲

mapontosevenths 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You would be charged with inciting a riot, reckless homicide, etc regardless of the actual words you shouted to cause the deaths, but I see your point.

▲

14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

trollbridge 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep, and that's what Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined.

▲

jjk166 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's quite the legal theory.

▲

pessimizer 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being used as an excuse for censorship is the surest way to know you are talking to someone who hasn't even started doing the reading. Even worse, they often (over the past very few years) self-identify as socialists or anti-war, and the decision was in order to prosecute anti-war socialists for passing out pamphlets.

If somebody says it, they not only don't care about free speech, they don't even care about having a good faith conversation about free speech. They've probably been told this before, and didn't bother to look it up, just repeated it again. Wasting good people's time.

edit: here's a copy of fire in a crowded theater, https://postimg.cc/gallery/q4PJnPh

▲

mapontosevenths 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Brother, I'm on the spectrum so it's possible I'm the one missing the point here, but I think this time its the other way around.

To me and most folks that I know its a figure of speech, not a reference to the actual 1919 supreme court case.

	▲	dragonwriter 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> To me and most folks that I know its a figure of speech, not a reference to the actual 1919 supreme court case. A figure of speech meaning what? Most people, AFAICT, that use it use it as an widely-perceived authoritative example of something specific that is accepted to be outside of the protection of free speech, a use that derives from and its use in the Schenk v. U.S. decision (it is sometimes explicitly described as something the Supreme Court has declared as outside of the protection of the 1st Amendment, which clearly derives from that origin.) Of course, reliance on it for that purpose has problems because (1) it was dicta, not part of the ruling, in Schenk, and (2) Schenk is a notoriously bad decision impinging on core political speech in its specific application, and whose general rule is also no longer valid. I have no idea what it would communicate as “a figure of speech”, and if it is actually used by some people as a figure of speech meaning something other than what it literally says being an example of unprotected speech (including, though I can see how this use would have some logic, as a figure of speech meaning “a persistently popular, despite being notoriously wrong, understanding of a legal rule”) it is one that impedes rather than promotes communication.