About Jay C Ritterson
The only failure is the failure to try.
Categories
Recent Posts
Archives
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- February 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- February 2020
- December 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- June 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- January 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- October 2014
- July 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- September 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- September 2008
- May 2008
Yelling Fire
26 December 2018 Leave a comment
So if yelling “Fire!” in the crowded auditorium is not free speech but a disruptive and dangerous act, what would it mean if someone started to whisper “Poison gas! Pass it on.” Would that be free speech? Many free speech advocates are perhaps no more than adrenaline driven anarchists who revel in the spreading of incendiary discourse and hate speech through digital media outlets and social networks. Does this fall under American rights?
Will the courts take on a clarification of where free speech ends and dangerous speech and gestures and symbols begin, and how we can judge which is which? Free speech, as has the right to bear arms, seems to have run aground on the centuries old question of adhering to the letter of the law, or Constitution, or to the spirit of the law. Without a clarification that accurately describes in words the intent of such laws, putting aside how much the nuance of American English, and the milieu of contemporary life have shifted over two hundred plus years, we must get moving on creating practical mechanism for protecting the rights of the many without empowering perpetrators and threatening victims.
I suspect all of the creators and drafters of the Bill of Rights had that at heart. If we can’t accept that, then it’s time to reexamine what it is be an American.
jay@jaezz.org
Like this:
Related
Filed under Reflections, Social Commentary Tagged with Civil Rights