On 08.10.2009, at 22:45, David Patrick Henderson wrote: > [...] let's do a thought experiment. All > speech is free as in free of consequence. Can one enter a crowded > space with limited egress and decide to shout "fire" where there is in > fact no fire and have no criminal or civil penalties assessed?
In what way does this limit the scope to being political, or "between" the "government" and the "people". > Or better yet, if all speech is free, reconcile that idea with the > exceptions for slander and libel. It has to do with truth and/or veracity, but regardless of that, see the above since it applies equally here. > [...] The Constitution applies only with regard to > intercessions between the government and its agents and the people. There is no ground to contest that the general case is restricted to political discourse. You might argue that it is not a "get out of jail free card". It does not guarantee freedom from prosecution for "all-and-any-things-spoken,- sung-or-communicated-in-any-way-in-all-and-any-place(s)-in-all-and-any- contexts-without-any-limitations-whatsoever", but that's a bit of a mouthful and its both easier and more easier understood to state the general case as succinctly as possible and detail exceptions (slander, libel, extolling others to commit crimes etc.) where necessary, which is, to our nigh complete lack of surprise, exactly what the US and many other countries that embrace (or pretend to embrace) the principle of free speech have done. _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
