In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court stated that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case.
That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged on "dangerous and false" and was reconsidered in Brandenburg v Ohio[1] and the standard was raised to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Effectively:
- If the "dangerous" speech is false or likely to "incite imminent lawless action", you have trouble.
- If the "dangerous" speech is debatable as true or not OR debatable on if it would "incite imminent lawless action", then it's way less clear.
It will be very hard for anyone to prove that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comprises a "debate on public issue".
And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
"speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."
Big Tech San Francisco censored the lab leak hypothesis, now accepted as credible.
During the lockdowns, politicians freely held dinners and mingled, mask-free with their friends. For those less equal than others, you were fined or arrested.
Invading in the Capitol was "peaceful protest" in 2018 when Democrats did it, but "insurrection" in 2021, because Republicans did it.
The New York Times now ranks below Breitbart in terms of credibility.
Same goes for universities. You know why people don't "trust the science"? Because when you mix politics and science, you get politics, not science.
"Dangerous and false" now just means "isn't approved by CNN today, but might be tomorrow if convenient".
Slander, meanwhile, is by definition false (as determined by a court). If the court finds that it isn't false, then it wasn't slander. Thus it isn't protected by law, and the state can prosecute you over it.
2021 had folks die/get murdered.
I can see how you are confused.
The one person who died violently was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot.
(And before you mention him, Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).)
Being a devil's advocate, that's been tried multiple time by faulty fire alarms.
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/06/05/a-backlas...
Discussed at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27603912
> The arguments the two sides put forward, in other words, are complex and debatable. But many trans activists think that any disagreement is tantamount to hate speech and try to suppress it. Some universities with policies that reflect the belief that trans women are women have acted on complaints about people who do nothing more than express a contrary view. In May, after students at Abertay University in Dundee reported that a student had said at a seminar that women have vaginas and men are stronger, the university launched an investigation.
Regardless of personal opinions on the topic, the fact that it gets this sort of is-it-or-isn't-it treatment in a major newspaper, on top of the seesawing behavior from universities described in the article itself, is a good indication that the topic's nature as "hate speech" or not is fairly ambiguous.
When everybody is participating in good faith, "I know it when I see it" obscenity test type stuff works fine. It's less obviously useful of a yardstick when there's a clear incentive to make bad faith claims against ideological or organizational rivals.
In reality in those cases there was almost no backlash and in fact everyone treated the professor with kid gloves while what he purported to have done was way worse and what the students had done was way overblown (see the Political Correctness of the excellent podcast called You Are Wrong About). So pardon me if I don’t buy this particular article/story line.
Apparently now it’s a viable theory but rewind 9 months ago and one could see a hate speech law silencing any debate.
And BTW, the President is actively pursuing an investigation into this. It's not some crackpot conspiracy.
The UK is in the throes of trying to define what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society. The problem seems to stem from the parameters of 'harm' being defined almost entirely by the victim. There are claims that arguments against certain idiologies "deny the existence" of groups, and further that expressing these idea seems to lead directly to self harm and suicides. So, "speech that causes harm" and makes people feel hated. Bingo: 'hate speech'. But what happens when there isn't any hate or targeted 'detesting' going on? (Or good data on suicides for that matter.) It's open for abuse by a mob. Not a good path to head down in a pluralist, liberal society IMHO.
It's strange to me that at least within nations, the previously war-starting disagreements about the finer details of the Abrahamic religions seem to have chosen different orbits within society, politely nod to each other and know no good will come from trying to lock horns. The kids on Twitter now have apparently equally strongly held beliefs about other stuff but are utterly gob-smacked that other people won't agree with them even though they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT.