[immibis]

"Free speech means free speech" is a tautology and does absolutely nothing to counter the idea that it could mean either freedom to oppose the government, freedom to spam, or freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. In fact it's very conspicuously a purely emotional statement with zero logical content; anyone who uses this response is conspicuously asserting that they don't care about logical argument.

The assertion that Wikipedia has more content than it did in 2004 is also logically void.

[somenameforme]

The 'freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater' argument against free speech is such a perfect illustration of the issue. That was an argument made by Mr. Eugenics himself, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, in a famous case Schneck vs United States. [1]

In it Charles Schneck was convicted for an absolutely abhorrent crime. He sent out fliers to men drafted for WW1 informing them of a legal defense against the draft - of it constituting involuntary servitude, which was prohibited by the 13th Amendment, and encouraging them to consequently assert their legal rights and work to resist the draft.

For this, he was arrested and put in prison, with the government claiming that his mailed fliers were akin to 'shouting fire in a crowded theater.' This is why free speech means free speech. Limitations are invariably weaponized by authoritarian forces to shoehorn essentially everything into that limitation.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[immibis]

When I say "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" I mean "freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater" and not "freedom to hand out fliers informing people that the draft is illegal involuntary servitude".

https://x.com/raffysoanti/status/1403093629086965760

[somenameforme]

It doesn't matter what you think such a restriction means. What matters is what politicians would use it for. That's why this is such a beautifully ironic quote, because when I say the right to ban such speech would open the door to abuse, I don't need to draw on hypotheticals.

The quote is literally part of the government's [successful] argument that their right to imprison somebody for shouting fire in a crowded theater naturally grants them the right to imprison somebody for handing out informative fliers that run contrary to warmonger interests.

There's no stronger argument for free speech means free speech than the quote you chose.

[immibis]

So you do believe everyone should have the right to walk into a crowded theater and yell FIRE! and this should be constitutionally protected, because if there's any speech that isn't constitutionally protected, no speech is constitutionally protected?

What about the speech of "I will pay you $50 to stab that guy right now"? Constitutionally protected or do you believe that should be past a limit?

[somenameforme]

The consequences of an action can be prohibited without touching the action itself. For instance most of every state has laws against signaling a false alarm. It doesn't matter whether you do that by triggering a fire alarm, playing an extremely loud fire alarm type sound, shouting fire, or whatever else - it's all illegal.

Not only does this prevent trampling on speech and minimize abuse, but it's also far more to the point. Because why is shouting fire uniquely awful while shouting penis is just some kids being annoying that should simply be kicked out of a theater? It's not because of the words obviously, but because of the consequence created.

[immibis]

If there was a law against forming a suicide cult you'd still count it as a first amendment violation since cults are formed using speech, right?

I think it should be illegal to spread Nazism, but Nazism is spread using speech so people keep telling me that would be a first amendment violation.