| Factitious wrote:
>gila_monster wrote:
>>1) How can you tell with any certainty that the shouter should or shouldn't be taken seriously at a given moment? You can't.
>
>Sure you can. Look for smoke or flames.
This would be of little use, in the general case. What if the fire is in the box office, or behind the stage? It still represents a hazard - possibly more of one than an obvious flame, as a smoldering plastic or oil fire can fill even a large theater with CO and other toxic, yet invisible, gases.
Also, to reiterate a point made previously, this was simply an example given by Justice Holmes. The specific case he was judging was regarding anti-draft pamphleteering during WWI (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); you can see the case review and Justice Holmes' opinion at http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+f_freedom+of+speech!3A%5D/doc/%7Bt13128%7D/hit_headings/words=4/pageitems=%7Bbody%7D?. It was ruled that, while opposition to the draft was legal, distributing the particular pamphlets - which encouraged mutiny on the part of those already drafted - was an act of espionage. My own view of it is, More Power To Them, but I'm neither a justice nor a military officer). Also, as he was to say in another instance, "Eloquence may set fire to reason": that is to say, the immediacy or persuasiveness of a statement may overrule better judgement. Who, when threatened with bodily harm, can be sure of keeping their good sense intact?
(Keep in mind that Holmes was largely a *defender* of free speech in his own time; yet another quote from him reads, "We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe." He simply realized that even the most important freedoms can be abused.)
Protected speech in the US, first and foremost, is about the rights to a) air grievances with the government publically, b) exchange ideas freely, and c) express one's opinions and ideals openly. Speech meant to harm others in and of itself (as opposed to expressing ideas that others are offended by) is not protected. Most other nations that have a concept of free speech hold similar views, AFAIK, or else more restrictive ones (I cannot say about the laws in the Netherlands specifically).
If you threaten someone verbally, it is considered assault in most jurisdictions - the victim has been given reason to fear for their safety, regardless of whether you intend to act on your threat or not. The act is essentially the same as if you had pointed a gun or a knife at them.
If you use 'fighting words' - defined as an abuse or provocation to grievous to bear - or otherwise speak in a way intended to incite someone to violence (against you or against someone or something else, by one person or many) - it is not protected speech, because the predictable destructive result.
Libel (defamation in print) and slander (spoekn defamation) are not protected speech. If you make a statement which implies criminal, immoral or otherwise objectionable actions or characteristics to a person, with malice aforethought and in full knowledge that the statement is untrue, and (this is the important part) have a reasonable expectation that the audience or readership will believe the statement to be true, then it is (depending on the medium) slanderous or libellous. (I guess all that research I did during the TrueHosting brouhaha has paid off).
Odd that I'm here, defending this. It's a strange world. Normally, I'm all for freedom of speech being absolute - but even I have to draw the line, I guess. What it really comes down to is: violent speech is violence, period. You can express what you like - you can demand a violent proletarian revolution, or declare that 'All Jews and Blacks are inferior and should be eliminated' - and it is within your rights (it is also within my rights to be offended, to walk away, or to express my disagreement). But, when you actually provoke, defame or threaten with words, you are not exchanging ideas, you are harming someone, and *that* is not protected. |
