|
|
|
|
|
by rhizome
2629 days ago
|
|
There are other small and well established edge-case restrictions on free speech I am willing to accept, mind you, eg market manipulation or giving false statements to police. But I don’t see the classic fire-in-theatre one as being relevant to anything. This contradicts the point you were making before, which I was responding to, where no agency is qualified to establish limits, so I guess this part of the thread is over. HOWEVER refuse to carve out the exception and accept the risk of the occasional unnecessary evacuation You're still hung up on theaters, not to mention a whole whack of cherry-picked hyper-specific scenarios. Look into the Hillsborough Disaster some time. Or here's an on-point example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster ...would that be no fault of anybody in the free-speech society you are advocating? Maybe pulling a fire alarm would have to be established as a form of speech first, but I bet that could be done. |
|
No it doesn't, you don't need an agency butting in case-by-case to have specific exclusions.
> Hillsborough Disaster
Too many people, bad management of the crowd, how is this relevant to speech at all?
> Italian Hall disaster
I think it's fair to blame the design of the building and overcrowding here. Blaming the person that yelled fire is good for vengeance but not very good for safety and accident-prevention.