[archerface]

> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people...

Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that...

When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what a person can and cannot say (a world I want nothing to do with).

Back to the previous point, I support someone's right to say something, not what they say. I think white supremacists are morons who sadly misunderstand there position in the world. I support their right to SAY what they want, but I don't support the contents of their speech.

The discussion around free speech requires nuance; none of it is even remotely close to as black and white as you paint it.

[blueboo]

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And if stoking panic in the easily-panicked is something you ARE okay with forbidding, why is it then ok to stoke hatred in the easily-manipulable?

I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...

[velosol]

Of course you can yell fire in a crowded theater. Perhaps you smelled smoke from the popcorn machine (or were having a stroke) and everyone would get up pretty calmly and leave the theater (or tell you to shut up and watch the movie/play). If someone twisted their ankle or even managed to get trampled to death few lawyers would even consider a case against you.

Now, if you had clear intent to cause injury, blocked exits to ensure harm, and started the fire you'd be up on several charges related to fire safety codes & arson laws long before you had a prior restraint on speech claim (i.e. 1st amendment).

The original Supreme Court case (Schenck v. US [1]) from which the rhetorical flourish about fires and theaters came [2] has been pretty much abandoned in favor of later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio [3].

[1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

[2]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

One more interesting read on this topic: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-expl...

[philwelch]

> But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

This cliche comes from a WWI era Supreme Court ruling and was part of the argument for how imprisoning anti-war protestors for “sedition” wasn’t technically a violation of the First Amendment.

[pnw_hazor]

No law or censor is stopping anyone from yelling fire.

Censorship is prior restraint. Stopping speech before it is utterred, read, or heard because reasons.

[archerface]

I honestly would have to read up more on the arguments for the restrictions that are currently in place.

A problem with this whole discussion is that no one has the same definition of "hate speech"; it is too subjective of a term. We all (the majority) agree when it is wrong to declare imminent danger.

But like I said, I need to read up more on the rationale for those restrictions.