YesIf I yell “fire!” in a movie theater, is that free speech?
YesIf I yell “fire!” in a movie theater, is that free speech?
Contrarians keep arguing this, but this is being intentionally obtuse.
It's pretty simple, speech is speech. Even yelling fire is speech, when people make actions that's when things happen. IF people listen to you then its on them. By assuming that yelling fire means a trampling or two means that you are taking the agency away from people and consider them incapable of thinking and acting on their own.Contrarians keep arguing this, but this is being intentionally obtuse.
The suggested connotation here is that if one uses intentional deception leading to injury that such speech can lead to criminal or civil charges. So, let’s bd more distinct for the contrarians.
If one lies about a terror attack, such as a bomb in a public place, is that free speech?
Given that many people have been arrested for exercising their ability to communicate, the blatantly obvious answer is that yes…there can be punishments for speech.
It's pretty simple, speech is speech. Even yelling fire is speech, when people make actions that's when things happen. IF people listen to you then its on them. By assuming that yelling fire means a trampling or two means that you are taking the agency away from people and consider them incapable of thinking and acting on their own.
just listen to hitch :
The problem is not the speech itself, but the violence resulting from it.I understand the point you’re making, but my point is that there is a huge array of examples where Americans have been jailed or sued for speech. So, the argument that anything can be said with out penalty is factually incorrect.
Like the kids in Louisville in the early 2000’s who called parents and told them their kids had died…. We can say that’s free speech, but they were also found guilty.
Do ppl that regurgitate this phrase even know the cases it was involved with and the context of it?If I yell “fire!” in a movie theater, is that free speech?
Both are authoritarians. Just different flavors. Right or left. The political board is literally auth-left vs auth-right.Kamala is for They/Them. Donald Trump is for you!
But that’s the point and why I say people arguing against it are being contrarian.The problem is not the speech itself, but the violence resulting from it.
The issue isn't the speech. It's people who decide to listen. By assuming it's speech and not others actions, that are the problems. You are, like I said, taking the agency away from people and consider them incapable of thinking and acting on their own. The victims would not have an impact made on them, if they simply did not listen to Jones' speech.But that’s the point and why I say people arguing against it are being contrarian.
If what Alex Jones said had no impact on victims then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Bill Cooper said that in July 2001/2000.So you equate... "staged" with attacking the families? He said Bush and Cheney knew 911 was going to happen and nobody sued him. He said that planes would crash into the twin towers and the government would blame Osama Bin Laden. Wild that he called that out months before 9/11.
You keep using words like "evil".... What did he actually say? Then equate it to what other people say about other people and just see if you see it as "evil".... You still haven't posted a single video of him actually saying this horrible evil stuff you say he said. It should be really easy and then I'd just slink away and apologize for being ill informed.
The issue isn't the speech. It's people who decide to listen. By assuming it's speech and not others actions, that are the problems. You are, like I said, taking the agency away from people and consider them incapable of thinking and acting on their own. The victims would not have an impact, if they simply did not listen to Jones' speech.
You asked if yelling fire in a theatre is free speech, which it is. It only becomes a problem if someone chooses to listen to you. Alex Jones saying the sandy hook shooting was a hoax, is free speech too. The issue is not speech, speech is speech. It's people's actions. The victims could simply ignore Alex Jones, just as you could to someone yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theatre.Okay, but meanwhile Alex Jones has to pay 1B+ ultimately due to his speech and impact on victims. So, regardless of ideology or philosophy, he had ramifications for speech.
You asked if yelling fire in a theatre is free speech, which it is. It only becomes a problem if someone chooses to listen to you. Alex Jones saying the sandy hook shooting was a hoax, is free speech too. The issue is not speech, speech is speech. It's people's actions. The victims could simply ignore Alex Jones, just as you could to someone yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theatre.
So you agree the issue is not speech, it's actions. Good, that was all I was saying.Right and I’m saying that connotation is implied with the fire example.
Obviously if I claim there is a bomb or incoming terror attack then argue “people didn’t have to listen to me” after following reaction it would not suffice in court.
But if I write the same thing on my wall and no one sees it then…
So you agree the issue is not speech, it's actions.
Until you consider the fact his looney listeners started harassing parents. Pretty hard to ignore that.You asked if yelling fire in a theatre is free speech, which it is. It only becomes a problem if someone chooses to listen to you. Alex Jones saying the sandy hook shooting was a hoax, is free speech too. The issue is not speech, speech is speech. It's people's actions. The victims could simply ignore Alex Jones, just as you could to someone yelling ''fire'' in a crowded theatre.