Re: Well done Lance

Never forget that crying fire in a theater is fine when there is actually a fire, and in fact not doing so could be criminal.  

 

Free speech is not absolute either way, it needs context and details to define it.

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:17 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Well done Lance

 

Ah the age old question.  That should be governed by civil liability not criminal.  If you yell fire in a crowded theater and people take you seriously and someone gets injured then you should be subject to civil damages.  But I don’t want the govt. picking and choosing what any of us can and can’t say.

 

I realized there will always be a continuum of speech to action that must be defined, (bribery, blackmail, hits for hire as in this example -  I question how serious that was as opposed to just frustrated venting), but the line should be drawn in a way that allows the most speech possible.

 

Mike F.  

 

 

 

From: Lance McLain <mailto:lance-X3DuywwxauBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>  

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 10:22 PM

To: DADL (off topic) <mailto:[email protected]>  

Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Well done Lance

 

 

On Jan 14, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Mike Findlay wrote:





I'll be honest that I haven't read it but I got the sense that these were only written or verbal threats.  Being the free speech absolutist that I am that shouldn't be enough to get arrested.  Speech without action shouldn't be a crime.  Hmmm I suppose in some circumstances like bribery or blackmail implied action is enough.  But I think you know what I mean. 

 

What about yelling Fire in a crowded theater?

 

regards,

-Lance





 

  _____  

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot