Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.

Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY

You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater.

The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him.

> Do I really have to explain the concept?

No, you don't.

> Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.

But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?

I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof.

If there IS a fire, then by all means yell "fire!" accordingly.

I've twice seen Penn Jillette stand on stage before thousands, juggling flaming torches, pontificating loudly about and proceeding to yell "fire!"

I've seen the movie _Backdraft_ in a movie theater; there was much yelling of "fire!" therein.

And, of course, if you scare a crowd into a life-threatening stampede by yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, then you're culpable for any harm that follows.

All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.

That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater.

> All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.

I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said:

>> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh?

But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.

This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against a certain type of speech because you've judged it to be the wrong kind of speech. Once you've set a precedent that the wrong kind of speech can be infringed, you no longer have free speech - you have a struggle for the power to define allowed speech and disallowed speech.

It seems like you are unnecessarily conflating speech and the consequences of speech.

You probably know it, but that's a lazy false dilemma.

The point was just that there are much more obvious problems with people in positions of power than not being able to distinguish with punishment for using one's vocal chords and punishment for whatever it caused.

A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc.

(There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)

A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...