non aggression principle & politics - Page 4

Undertoad · 10-07-2005, 11:01 AM

Oh. So, you can not be punished for speaking, unless what you said had a bad result.

Well let's play with it a bit. What kind of bad result? If you create a mob in which people are trampled and property destroyed, sure. If you shout FIRE in a theatre and nobody gets hurt, is that a crime? What if you intended to incite a riot and you just screwed up and announced the FIRE in a theatre at a firemen's convention and it just made people happy instead?

Happy Monkey · 10-07-2005, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh. So, you can not be punished for speaking, unless what you said had a bad result.

Quote:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Apparently.

10-07-2005, 12:59 PM

Why are you arguing this, anyhow, UT? Where are you going with it? Are you laying the groundwork to prove that people should be gagged from expressing their opinions or documents shredded in the name of Homeland Security or the War on Terror?

Undertoad · 10-07-2005, 01:27 PM

Mar, you often react to the very last posting when the larger context doesn't justify it. Whenever you can't figure out where someone is going you should go back and read the entire thread.

10-07-2005, 01:45 PM

Well, somewhere in this thread, you said that there is disagreement over what is and what is not constitutional and used the example of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of arguing that particular example. The Bill of Rights does not give people free rein to commit crimes under the guise of the Constitution. The false shout of "FIRE" when it will bring harm to those who hear it is obviously a crime. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to tell lies that bring others very real damage. I guess I'd rather argue an example that is a little less absurd and more relevant to what is going on in the nation today. But that's just me.

Clodfobble · 10-07-2005, 03:54 PM

And somewhere before that was the whole setup of what UT and Radar are doing here, which is not in any sense a traditional debate about "what is going on in the nation today." You should go read those posts.

10-07-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And somewhere before that was the whole setup of what UT and Radar are doing here, which is not in any sense a traditional debate about "what is going on in the nation today." You should go read those posts.

I did, but if you'll notice there's been a bit of thread drift here. Hey, UT and Radar can duke it out just fine without any more help from me. They've lost me - if I was ever NOT lost.

Gentleman have at it, sorry for the interruption!

elSicomoro · 10-07-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you shout FIRE in a theatre and nobody gets hurt, is that a crime? What if you intended to incite a riot and you just screwed up and announced the FIRE in a theatre at a firemen's convention and it just made people happy instead?

And who determines whether it's a bad result? What if I yell "potato" and a riot ensues, but I had no intention of starting one?

Radar · 10-07-2005, 06:06 PM

Most likely a judge would decide, and intent would play a strong role. Unless you had hypnotized the audience into believing potatoes would kill them all, it would be hard to prove that you had any rational way of believing if you shout the word "potato" a riot would result.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-07-2005, 07:35 PM

We need ZOD in 2008.

Check out his platform and the Q&A.

10-07-2005, 01:45 PM	#50
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	Well, somewhere in this thread, you said that there is disagreement over what is and what is not constitutional and used the example of shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I'm sorry, but I don't understand the point of arguing that particular example. The Bill of Rights does not give people free rein to commit crimes under the guise of the Constitution. The false shout of "FIRE" when it will bring harm to those who hear it is obviously a crime. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to tell lies that bring others very real damage. I guess I'd rather argue an example that is a little less absurd and more relevant to what is going on in the nation today. But that's just me. Last edited by marichiko; 10-07-2005 at 01:48 PM. Reason: histrionics

10-07-2005, 06:06 PM	#54
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Most likely a judge would decide, and intent would play a strong role. Unless you had hypnotized the audience into believing potatoes would kill them all, it would be hard to prove that you had any rational way of believing if you shout the word "potato" a riot would result. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

10-07-2005, 07:35 PM	#55
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	We need ZOD in 2008. Check out his platform and the Q&A. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

10-07-2005, 11:01 AM	#46
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Oh. So, you can not be punished for speaking, unless what you said had a bad result. Well let's play with it a bit. What kind of bad result? If you create a mob in which people are trampled and property destroyed, sure. If you shout FIRE in a theatre and nobody gets hurt, is that a crime? What if you intended to incite a riot and you just screwed up and announced the FIRE in a theatre at a firemen's convention and it just made people happy instead?

10-07-2005, 12:59 PM	#48
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	Why are you arguing this, anyhow, UT? Where are you going with it? Are you laying the groundwork to prove that people should be gagged from expressing their opinions or documents shredded in the name of Homeland Security or the War on Terror?

10-07-2005, 01:27 PM	#49
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Mar, you often react to the very last posting when the larger context doesn't justify it. Whenever you can't figure out where someone is going you should go back and read the entire thread.

10-07-2005, 03:54 PM	#51
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	And somewhere before that was the whole setup of what UT and Radar are doing here, which is not in any sense a traditional debate about "what is going on in the nation today." You should go read those posts.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)