steam injun
Bold is a partial concession. I pointed this out awhile ago.
No it isn't. Context matters, yes. It always matters. But that is a case where they cannot be separated. That is something you are not allowed to yell. It will be difficult to prove that screaming "He's got a gun!" for the pure hell of it in a crowded auditorium was
not an attempt to cause havoc. You act as if that only applies if the person is a terrorist. It doesn't.
steam injun
The italics is wrong. Fire in a theatre isn't protected under the right to free speech, that doesn't mean it's illegal.
The fact that you can be fined or earn jail time is evidence that it is.
steam injun
Racial slurs aren't protected under free speech, but they aren't illegal to say.
>.>
I don't think you understand how the constitution works.
steam injun
Inciting riots is the basis of the law.
Yes. Which, in this case, is realized through speech.
Quote:
steam injun
But they're just similar enough, amirite?
Similar enough for what? My point was never that it was the same. Again, it was that dissimilar acts can have the same punishment.
see below.
steam injun
I said smoking and speaking aren't the same.
You said "well, they're punished similarly, durhur." in response.
I'm trying to figure out why you're throwing out this random information. I came up with two reasons;
1. You just want them similar enough to try and make whatever deluded point you're grasping at. or;
2. You keep typing because you think I'll give up.
You said that smoking and speaking are not the same. You are trying to imply that they cannot be punished similarly because they are not the same. That is your whole point, amirite? If not, then what is the point? Why is it so relevant that speaking and smoking are not the same?
steam injun
fix'd.
I'd assume that most people could've put their finger on the missing word...
I suppose I shouldn't expect you to factor variables into the equation. Like time of day.
steam injun
I take it this is a concession...
I already said that it has to do with riots. My point is that speech is integral in this case.
Quote:
steam injun
You can have intent without action.
I can plan to murder someone but not actually do it.
And action does not necessarily mean the intention you're trying to push.
Which, once again, has to do with this case, how?
steam injun
You keep asking how the intention is realized, otherwise.
What, exactly, are you trying to push?
Breakdown:
You can disconnect the two in some cases. However, that does not mean that you can disconnect them from all cases. You are arguing that they are disconnected in all cases, which is untrue. This example is one of them. You cannot disconnect the speech from the intentions in this case.
steam injun
SO THEN.
LIKE I SAID.
YELLING 'FIRE' IN A THEATRE ISN'T NECESSARILY AGAINST THE LAW.
IT'S INCITING A RIOT THROUGH ANY MEANS THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
I'M GLAD WE AGREE.
We agreed on that from the beginning.
I need to bring this up again. You apparently assume that "riot-incensing" = terrorist attack. Always. But that isn't true. It could merely be an idiot trying to be funny with his or her idiot friends. There are
not many ways to defend screaming "He's got a gun!" for the pure hell of it in a crowded auditorium. Is that person a terrorist? Probably not. Was he/she trying to kil persons? Probably not. But that doesn't matter.
And it doesn't need to be a
riot. It only needs to cause widespread chaos. (Difference is that riots involve angry mobs whereas chaos does not, necessarily.)
steam injun
I can say these things. Look back at what I said about racial slurs.
Not protected =/= illegal.
Whether or not people panic is the basis of whether or not I'm arrested.
Like I said, context matters. But they are literally limiting when you can say these things. Which is a limit on speech.
steam injun
We've been talking about yelling fire in a theatre since, like, page six.
Where have you been?
Context. It was an example of how the gov't limits speech. You seriously didn't know that since the beginning.
100
200
300
