Who Provide An Extensive Range Of...
How it Works0 min ago
Should The Verses Of The Koran Calling For The 'murder And Punishment Of Jews, Christians And Disbelievers' Be Removed?
35 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I just need to check if that's the same free speech that forbids shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre but allows any number of incitements to murder and maim in the name of an overgrown fairy of whatever flavour.
If it's used in a book, newspaper or comic it's 'hate speech' but dressed up as religious doctrine it's fine.
If it's used in a book, newspaper or comic it's 'hate speech' but dressed up as religious doctrine it's fine.
Douglas - // I just need to check if that's the same free speech that forbids shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre but allows any number of incitements to murder and maim in the name of an overgrown fairy of whatever flavour. //
Free speech does not 'forbid' shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
The entire premise of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s ruling in a court case in 1919, is that the phrase is in fact "Falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
The word 'falsely' is often missed out, and completely removes the point that Holmes was making - the difference between a genuine warning, and malicious intent.
To shout 'Fire!' when there is a fire, is protected under the laws of free speech because it signifies a clear and present danger.
Falsely shouting 'Fire!' is not protected, because it causes danger of harm without justifiable cause.
// If it's used in a book, newspaper or comic it's 'hate speech' but dressed up as religious doctrine it's fine. //
That in my view is an unsustainably wide sweeping statement - any phrase or message has to be taken under its own merits, including the context, the meaning, and the intent behind it.
Free speech does not 'forbid' shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
The entire premise of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s ruling in a court case in 1919, is that the phrase is in fact "Falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
The word 'falsely' is often missed out, and completely removes the point that Holmes was making - the difference between a genuine warning, and malicious intent.
To shout 'Fire!' when there is a fire, is protected under the laws of free speech because it signifies a clear and present danger.
Falsely shouting 'Fire!' is not protected, because it causes danger of harm without justifiable cause.
// If it's used in a book, newspaper or comic it's 'hate speech' but dressed up as religious doctrine it's fine. //
That in my view is an unsustainably wide sweeping statement - any phrase or message has to be taken under its own merits, including the context, the meaning, and the intent behind it.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
.Mrs Simpson seems to have acquired an extra husband somewhere along the line.
nope - Win Spencer, Ernest Simpson and Edward
concealed perhaps but still there
https:/
Of course she divorced them - well some of them -
I am not suggesting Bigamy or in her case I suppose trigamy
blimey I dont believe it even in AB
some people are taking this question seriously
nope - Win Spencer, Ernest Simpson and Edward
concealed perhaps but still there
https:/
Of course she divorced them - well some of them -
I am not suggesting Bigamy or in her case I suppose trigamy
blimey I dont believe it even in AB
some people are taking this question seriously
Latest Posts
Use Of A Machine That Would Then...
News28 mins ago
Mitolyn Reviews ™ Reviews (Honest...
Food & Drink33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.