But it missed a point. Yes, you can shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater, if the theatre is on fire. And you are generally not culpable if you THOUGHT it was on fire but were wrong.
The analogy, applied to reality, means that a person can denounce their government, a party, a government agency, or a specific official, if they see them as a threat to citizen's rights. Labeling the denunciations as 'disinformation', 'misinformation', or 'hate speech' is just a totalitarian ploy to stomp on our essential right to criticize government. Our right to denounce government or any part of it is the number one reason why we have a first amendment.
You absolutely *can* yell "Fire" in a crowded theater even if it isn't on fire. I actually did it recently. I went up to the mic during a Q&A, introduced myself, and mentioned that I work at FIRE—and I said that very loudly, multiple times.
The point is that context and intention matter, and what you *can't* do is yell "Fire" in a crowded theater *with the intent to start a panic and/or a stampede which could get people hurt.* It's not the speech or the word itself, but the intended reaction that is getting you in trouble here.
The trouble is, who decides those intentions? It's been decades since I last trusted our judicial system. It's systematic all right, but leave out the word 'judicial' in front of it.
You don't have to. If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater and a security guard or someone else believes the person is trying to start trouble, that's plenty for the person to at least be removed. If the person shouting "Fire" actually *causes* a panic, then that's pretty damning and it'd take a lot for them to prove they intended something else. It's not perfect, but it's possible to reasonably recognize context and intention in the moment. The point is that it is not about the word itself.
The percentages of young people who feel entitled to act out abusive verbal behavior and physical coercion against people with whom they disagree is absolutely appalling! That a quarter of them allow so easily for actual violence against those with whom this disagree is frightening! The danger they pose to other individuals and to civilized life has to be decreased, and there needs to be focused attention on how to re-socialize these antisocial teenagers and young adults.
David French has on Advisory Opinions expressed support for, if not KOSA itself, this sort of age verification requirement. I agree with FIRE's position here, but it would be interesting to hear a debate with David on this.
I've said that the endgame of cancel culture is not cowering conservatives, but Mutually Assured Destruction. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
MAD only works, though, when the threat is credible.
I really like the Video of the Month.
But it missed a point. Yes, you can shout 'Fire' in a crowded theater, if the theatre is on fire. And you are generally not culpable if you THOUGHT it was on fire but were wrong.
The analogy, applied to reality, means that a person can denounce their government, a party, a government agency, or a specific official, if they see them as a threat to citizen's rights. Labeling the denunciations as 'disinformation', 'misinformation', or 'hate speech' is just a totalitarian ploy to stomp on our essential right to criticize government. Our right to denounce government or any part of it is the number one reason why we have a first amendment.
You absolutely *can* yell "Fire" in a crowded theater even if it isn't on fire. I actually did it recently. I went up to the mic during a Q&A, introduced myself, and mentioned that I work at FIRE—and I said that very loudly, multiple times.
Here's Hitchens doing something similar:
https://youtu.be/zDap-K6GmL0?feature=shared
The point is that context and intention matter, and what you *can't* do is yell "Fire" in a crowded theater *with the intent to start a panic and/or a stampede which could get people hurt.* It's not the speech or the word itself, but the intended reaction that is getting you in trouble here.
The trouble is, who decides those intentions? It's been decades since I last trusted our judicial system. It's systematic all right, but leave out the word 'judicial' in front of it.
You don't have to. If someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater and a security guard or someone else believes the person is trying to start trouble, that's plenty for the person to at least be removed. If the person shouting "Fire" actually *causes* a panic, then that's pretty damning and it'd take a lot for them to prove they intended something else. It's not perfect, but it's possible to reasonably recognize context and intention in the moment. The point is that it is not about the word itself.
The percentages of young people who feel entitled to act out abusive verbal behavior and physical coercion against people with whom they disagree is absolutely appalling! That a quarter of them allow so easily for actual violence against those with whom this disagree is frightening! The danger they pose to other individuals and to civilized life has to be decreased, and there needs to be focused attention on how to re-socialize these antisocial teenagers and young adults.
David French has on Advisory Opinions expressed support for, if not KOSA itself, this sort of age verification requirement. I agree with FIRE's position here, but it would be interesting to hear a debate with David on this.
I've said that the endgame of cancel culture is not cowering conservatives, but Mutually Assured Destruction. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
MAD only works, though, when the threat is credible.