Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + + + + + +
Essay:Free speech issues (view source)
Revision as of 17:02, September 21, 2007
, 17:02, September 21, 2007incomplete ... gotta get back to work
Opponents to free speech - or restrictions on it - are often based on the principle of "clear and present danger". If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are expressing your opinion that there is a fire, with the obvious implication that people should begin evacuating. If there is no fire - and you ought to know better - then you have created such a public nuisance that no one would say the state was suppressing your rights by punishing you for causing a stampede.
Opponents to free speech - or restrictions on it - are often based on the principle of "clear and present danger". If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you are expressing your opinion that there is a fire, with the obvious implication that people should begin evacuating. If there is no fire - and you ought to know better - then you have created such a public nuisance that no one would say the state was suppressing your rights by punishing you for causing a stampede.
Likewise, there are provisions against [[inciting a riot]]. It's one thing to vilify a government official, or to badmouth a social, political or religious group. But to urge violent action against them directly - or even to stir people up, to agitate them so much that they run amok - this is considered criminal.
In both these cases, it's not the idea itself, but the timing and urgency of the expression. I can still say (calmly, later) that I thought the theater was on fire - or that I think a certain group is bad.
But new provisions of [[hate speech]] codes and laws seek to suppress ''any'' statement against certain "protected groups". This is censorship of [[pure speech]] and should be stopped.
Ted Kennedy's "Matthew Shepard" bill looks ...