The Partisan Divide on Issues

[pbrower2a]

(12-09-2020, 02:35 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-09-2020, 12:18 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In the gun debates, it is often said that no right is absolute, without specifying what the limits are.  I have often clarified that.  A right does not protect someone who causes harm to another, or violates another’s rights.  Thus the Second gives a right to own and carry a gun, but not to murder someone.

Can the principle be applied to free speech other than the example of crying 'fire' in a crowded theater?  In that case the potential harm is obvious.  If you lie, at what point are you causing harm.  If you say COVID is a hoax and it is not, are you doing deadly harm to those that believe you?  Negligent homicide?  If you knowingly falsely say there is election fraud and there is not, and that you should send money to prove it, using the money for other personal reasons, is that theft?

Thoughts?

If you want to define the limits to free speech, consider the following:

• SLANDER - There is no inherent right, or stipulated right for that matter, that permits any person or organization to slander.  Slander must be based on a lie or misrepresentation and be intended to harm, and most of us know it when we see or hear it.
  
• INCITEMENT TO RIOT - This is actually rather prescient at the moment, because the Trumpist phalange seems destined to cross this line.  The recent harassment of the Michigan Secretary of State might qualify.
  
• FALSE WITNESS - Again, it's not acceptable or legal to lie about someone -- especially in a legal matter. This one can get you jail time.
  
• TRIGGERING A PANIC - This is the 'fire in a crowded theater' issue, so enough said about that.
  

I'm sure other cases exist too, but these came to mind.

[*] CRIME -- criminal speech, writing, or image-making necessary for the furtherance of a crime is not protected as communication. Thus speech facilitating a robbery, writing that facilitates a fraud, or the forgery that makes counterfeiting possible is not recognized as an exercise of free speech. Such speech is of course tolerated in a screen or stage play, which distinguishes between the deeds of the original Barrow-Parker gang from the perfectly-legal depiction of their deeds in the movie Bonnie and Clyde. 

Obviously, criminal speech is rarely imaginative in content.