Are Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaccine Public Speakers Protected by "Freedom of Speech" in the US
Most of us know that it is illegal to deliberately and falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater...but does this limit of free speech also apply to a person who deliberately interrupts and halts the evacuation of a burning movie theater? would it not be illegal for them to tell everyone "just sit down! there is no fire!"?
discuss 🙂
Re: Are Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaccine Public Speakers Protected by "Freedom of Speech" in the US
Originally posted by Bashar TegI think there is a fine line between what becomes protecting people from the dangers of speech and what then becomes censorship.
Most of us know that it is illegal to deliberately and falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater...but does this limit of free speech also apply to a person who deliberately interrupts and halts the evacuation of a burning movie theater? would it not be illegal for them to tell everyone "just sit down! there is no fire!"?discuss 🙂
I will say there is a responsibility to call out the dangers of misinformation. Which is why I think the notion of agree to disagree on important topics is incredibly dangerous.
It's okay to believe what you want. It's not okay to be willfully ignorant to protect beliefs especially if they cause harm to others in pursuit of that ignorance. For instance anti-vaxxer rhetoric legit causes harm. This has been documented in cases and outbreaks of diseases that had been under control for awhile now.
Calling out fire or bomb on a plane is illegal and I think it’s a federal crime.
I don’t know how that relates to someone who says you don’t need to wear a mask.
The mask situation is moot though, many rioters, looters and protestors were not wearing masks. Even the Mayor of Chicago decided not to wear one when in a crowd of people.
We also have Nancy Pelosi going out without a Mask. And her nephew Gavin Newsome doing the same thing. He ordered strict orders no eating indoors. Then he decided to take a big group of his staffers and friends to a dinner indoors, then tried to say he was setup just like Pelosi did. It’s rather abhorrent behavior and I think people actually believed it.
Re: Re: Are Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaccine Public Speakers Protected by "Freedom of Speech" in the
Originally posted by Newjak
I think there is a fine line between what becomes protecting people from the dangers of speech and what then becomes censorship.I will say there is a responsibility to call out the dangers of misinformation. Which is why I think the notion of agree to disagree on important topics is incredibly dangerous.
It's okay to believe what you want. It's not okay to be willfully ignorant to protect beliefs especially if they cause harm to others in pursuit of that ignorance. For instance anti-vaxxer rhetoric legit causes harm. This has been documented in cases and outbreaks of diseases that had been under control for awhile now.
Lawmakers and public figures breaking their own rules causes just as much harm and it makes no sense. You first should start holding the people you support to the same standard to want the other side to abide by.
Re: Re: Re: Are Anti-Mask/Anti-Vaccine Public Speakers Protected by "Freedom of Speech" in
Originally posted by BrolyBlackWell at least you can't argue that the protocols aren't correct.
Lawmakers and public figures breaking their own rules causes just as much harm and it makes no sense. You first should start holding the people you support to the same standard to want the other side to abide by.
So at least there is that.
Originally posted by Bashar TegI don't think so. If there's a fire, the person trying to pretend it isn't there is overshadowed by the ****ing fire and is putting themselves in harm. The crowd will simply just push them out of the way and they'll win a Darwin award.
Most of us know that it is illegal to deliberately and falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater...but does this limit of free speech also apply to a person who deliberately interrupts and halts the evacuation of a burning movie theater? would it not be illegal for them to tell everyone "just sit down! there is no fire!"?discuss 🙂
Originally posted by Blakemore
I don't think so. If there's a fire, the person trying to pretend it isn't there is overshadowed by the ****ing fire and is putting themselves in harm. The crowd will simply just push them out of the way and they'll win a Darwin award.
If the fire is in the front of the house, and the usher tells the theater-goers to ignore the fire alarms and remain seated, then what?
Originally posted by Blakemore
I don't think so. If there's a fire, the person trying to pretend it isn't there is overshadowed by the ****ing fire and is putting themselves in harm. The crowd will simply just push them out of the way and they'll win a Darwin award.
don't know why you're scripting the whole situation unrealistically, but anyway...
most theater fires start out of view of the patrons. unless they see/small fire (which they probably won't), it's all down to trust. if yelling "there is no fire" is legal, then should it also be legal to lie and tell "fire"? imho it's far worse to risk burning other people alive than it is to risk public trampling.
Originally posted by Bashar TegI guess. If they were found to be bullshitting, they'll rightfully get fined for terrorism.
don't know why you're scripting the whole situation unrealistically, but anyway...most theater fires start out of view of the patrons. unless they see/small fire (which they probably won't), it's all down to trust. if yelling "there is no fire" is legal, then should it also be legal to lie and tell "fire"? imho it's far worse to risk burning other people alive than it is to risk public trampling.
Originally posted by Blakemore
No one's stopping them, it's the context as to why they're doing the thing in question. If the intent is malicious, they've committed a crime.
The intent is irrelevant, it is the effects that matter. If someone lies about a fire for the lulz, the intent is not malicious, but the effect is the same. It is why pretending to be a fascist or a racist or what have you is indistinguishable from actually being one. People do not have insight into the operation of your mind, they can only judge your beliefs by what you say and do.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI've said horrible things for the lulz, and there's a famous youtuber, you may have heard of him "Count Dankula" who did a nazi joke for the lulz (despite the fact he has a Che Guevara tattoo from when he was 16) he got fined by the EU for spreading neo-nazism. I don't think it should be a crime if it's just someone being joking. I mean ffs, you might as well remove 4chan from the face of the Earth if you don't want dumb people saying dumb offensive things.
The intent is irrelevant, it is the effects that matter. If someone lies about a fire for the lulz, the intent is not malicious, but the effect is the same. It is why pretending to be a fascist or a racist or what have you is indistinguishable from actually being one. People do not have insight into the operation of your mind, they can only judge your beliefs by what you say and do.
First they came for the racists and dumb****s, and I did not speak out...
Originally posted by Blakemore
I've said horrible things for the lulz, and there's a famous youtuber, you may have heard of him "Count Dankula" who did a nazi joke for the lulz (despite the fact he has a Che Guevara tattoo from when he was 16) he got fined by the EU for spreading neo-nazism. I don't think it should be a crime if it's just someone being joking. I mean ffs, you might as well remove 4chan from the face of the Earth if you don't want dumb people saying dumb offensive things.First they came for the racists and dumb****s, and I did not speak out...
If you spread Nazism as a joke or you spread Nazism for real, the net result is still spreading Nazism. Hence, why the intent does not really matter if the effect is the same.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEBut he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.
If you spread Nazism as a joke or you spread Nazism for real, the net result is still spreading Nazism. Hence, why the intent does not really matter if the effect is the same.
It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not.
Originally posted by Blakemore
But he wasn't spreading nazism, he even states in the video that he's not racist and just wanted to piss off his gf by pretending their dog was a nazi because she kept saying how cute her dog was by raising it's paw - so he pretended it was a nazi salute. He even apologised and obviously wasn't spreading hate, but still got fined.It's like saying violent video games are promoting violence. They're not.
Originally posted by ArtificialGloryExactly! I used to play Dungeon Keeper as a kid. I don't torture mistresses or slap imps.
Especially video games that allow you to play as a Nazi. Anyone who makes or plays such games should be thrown into jail for no less than 25 years!
Well, I did in the game. 😂