Are there ever any instances where free speech should be negated?
For example, someone yelling "Bomb!" on an airplane or "Fire!" in a theater.
Are these hypothetical situations too ridiculous to even consider?
What say you, /pol/?
Pic unrelated.
>>66751957
I believe that's called Clear and Present Danger
It's an act of causing hysteria and harm to a group.
>>66751957
Being a Ditto must be pretty awesome. Your job is just to have sex with everybody.
>>66751957
Handing out protected information, endangering people, arguably some forms of verbal abuse, any forum not run by the state
>>66751957
Making a threat against someone or something isn't covered by free speech.
Remember that guy that posted on 4chan 10 years ago about threatening to blow up a bunch of NFL stadiums?
>>66751957
you clearly don't understand enlightment conceptions of rights. Theaters and airplanes are private property, consequently you can be removed for saying anything they choose. You do NOT have a right to freedom of speech, you have a right to your body and your property. You have a right to make noises with your body but others have the right to remove you from their property for doing so. Threats violate the rights of others to their bodies.
>>66752593
I see.
What about public areas? Is all forms of free speech covered there?
>>66752314
It's not bad.
>>66752458
Is that moral?
Why are threats not covered under free speech?
While I'm not saying I condone threats, I am wondering how one would tackle this from a moral standpoint.
>>66753233
See, there's not a clear answer here. You could use the fire and bomb analogy, but that's what the government used in WWI to shut down dissenting anti war protests. Its a slippery slope with no real answers.
>>66753233
>>66753327
True free speech has never existed in any nation on earth, and has never been intended to exist
>>66751957
but what if there is a bomb on the plane anon
>>66752284
With that logic that would also include stuff like Muhammed caricatures. Free speech also includes speech that will lead to people dying and harm. Yelling "Fire" in a theater is free speech
>>66751957
Free speech is all about religion and politics and the like. It's about being able to call Obama a worthless negro if I feel like it.. NOT about trying to get people to stampede each other to death.
>>66753841
Its about being able to have and express any opinion you like without the government punishing you for it it
>>66751957
I got escorted off my flight because I told my friend Jack hi
>>66751957
Free speech doesn't cover anything and everything coming out of your mouth.
You're free to move around in public spaces, but that doesn't give you the right to move your foot into a random strangers face.
>>66751957
Free speech should never ever ever be negated. If someone yells fire or bomb and you are unsure of the risk (beyond the risk of a narcissistic manchild yelling at you), enquire into their qualifications.
>>66754118
hou je bek, alstublieft. free speech truly surely covers every mouth noise that english speakers can make.
Free speech isnt something to be negated just because someones feelings might get hurr, Its a human right and taking it away would be a crime against humanity
The only instance where you can't have free speech is when you're talking about taking away free speech. Everything else goes.
>>66754915
Because yelling fire and bomb on a plane should be allowed. In fact, someone yelling for the full 5 hour flight until the vocal cord ruptures should be protected by law, regardless of the consequences.
Truly the height of aussie shitposting right here.
I don't give a fuck about the whole civility of speech or even the consequences for muh feels, but it's obvious there are boundaries when speech can be equated to action in terms of consequences.
>>66755366
talking loudly enough to cause other people pain, that is not opinions it is directly equivalent to sounding an alarm or horn. there are laws against noise pollution, and laws protecting the safety of staff and passengers. The content of the speech is protected, not the method. You can't spit words and me and say it's free speech, and you can't yell them for the same reason.
>>66751957
You can't yell fire in a theater because it is a call to action. The expectation of action is what is illegal.
>>66756443
"I have placed a bomb in this airplane. If you do not do as I say I will detonate it and plunge us all into the abyss, praise Allah."
I don't know why I even respond to aussies anymore..
>>66757232
>mfw 99.98% of people who say those kinds of things are talking to stall for time since they have no real leverage.
if someone said that on an australian plane, he'd get a punch to the face, and no bomb would ever be discovered. maybe take what you hear with a grain of salt.
The yelling "fire" in a theater example is such a deadbeat argument.
It is a call to action (anything akin to imperative sentences) and is therefore not an opinion, ergo not protected by Free Speech.
>>66751957
Yes. All degenerate speech, pro-paraphilia, pro-adultery, anti-christian speech should be banned.
>>66751957
Knowingly lying in the media or academia should be punishable by death. Trump knows what's up. Kill the Marxists where they live
>threats
>direct incitations to violence
>dangerous lies or lies pertaining to a person's character
>deliberate misinfo in media (unless its expressly satire/comedy/context)
?
>>66751957
in israel we havea bann on promoting acts of violence on people.
rabbi khahana sat a year in jail for saying we should have bombed an arab village rather then an escaped terroist
>>66753992
Heh
>>66751957
Free speech should never be a criminal act but libel laws are perfectly fine
>>66757847
No your wrong in the punishment it should never go through a crimnal court but the y should be sued into oblivion
>>66758120
pussy
Why not have free speech except for bomb and fire
We need safety words.
>>66751957
Communist subversion should be met with the death penalty and promotion of mental illnesses etc should be against the law.
>>66751957
>For example, someone yelling "Bomb!" on an airplane or "Fire!" in a theater.
except those are calls to action, not free expression, and are not free speech, because they can and do lead to property damage and people getting hurt/killed.
A call to action is very different from normal speech.
>>66756877
Except that argument was turned over over forty years ago.
>>66751957
This whole debate is completely beside the point.
Free speech roughly means you don't get jailed for it. And courts are still more or less following this rule.
The real problem isn't state sanctions, it's shitstorms/social mobs/media pressure.
