Threats are prosecuted as intent to commit another crime, not ‘u said a naughty word.’ That’s why slogans such as “kill all men” would never lead to legal conviction in the US (they might in the UK!)
More importantly, the laws in this article are not about threats. Myself nor any freedom of conscious supporters I know of would claim verbal intent to commit a crime should be protected from legal consequence.
So unless you can name any, this is not only off topic but also a straw man.
So in conclusion you agree that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, and the USA law also agrees - “Yelling fire in a crowded theatre” etc.
Which is the point of discussion you started when you said “it does precisely mean there are never any legal consequences for saying anything”.
It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise.
Similar to threats, it’s not the speech that is illegal but the intent to commit a crime. Like any other criminal trial, your words can be used against you.
Not sure what more you’d mean when you say “freedom from consequences” (or how this relates to the article) but youre arguing against a point no one is attempting to make it seems. None of what you’ve mentioned is what’s meant by ‘freedom of speech’.
> It is legal in the US to yell fire in a crowded theater. It is not legal to intentionally create a false emergency situation, verbally or otherwise.
Thus one could conclude, and stay with me here because this is complex, that the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater does not… prevent you from facing legal consequences for yelling fire in a crowded theater.
You could take this understanding and you could reduce it down a snappy, easy to digest form: Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
What precisely was the point of your original post then? To assert a concept that has nothing to do with the article and that no one disagrees with?
One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not threats), and then had to stealth-edit your racist post to be about threats after I called you out. Now you’re stuck in that position.
Glad we seem to agree the speech in this article should be legally allowed unless it is genuine physical threats.
> One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article (not threats), and then had to stealth-edit your racist post to be about threats after I called you out. Now you’re stuck in that position.
Please don’t get heated again. Silly comments about contacting the prime minister and deflecting by calling racism detract from your argument and make you seem quite immature.
It’s both sad and telling how you read “minorities will violently attack you in the street” from that message, rather than “people will call the police on you and you may loose your job or face other societal consequences in response to your speech”.
> One possible reading is you were actually intending to defend the laws in the article
Of course I am. To me it doesn’t make a difference if you’re legally allowed to say something but then immediately face legal consequences from saying that thing, and just not being legally allowed to say something. It’s one and the same.
And the laws are good. I’m ok with them. Unlike the US the UK has a very healthy and diverse press, despite having no constitutionally defined freedom of speech, and the courts are robust and generally sensible.
So whatever, you’ve got to face consequences of your actions. If you want to go and send racist stuff to footballers then you’ll be banned from football. Cool. 100% down with that.
“Fire in a crowded theater” was a metaphor for protesting the draft during a war. We absolutely should have the right to do that, and we do; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States was wrongly decided and substantially overturned.
More importantly, the laws in this article are not about threats. Myself nor any freedom of conscious supporters I know of would claim verbal intent to commit a crime should be protected from legal consequence.
So unless you can name any, this is not only off topic but also a straw man.