the right to free speech has always been tempered with 'the greater good'. The textbook example is that I do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless there actually IS a fire).
I would think that "incitement to imminent violence" would be along the lines of "let's go kill person X", whereas posting something that might piss someone (or even a large group of someones) would not.
How a judge or lawyer interprets it will most likely be more situational.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Not sure what you mean. I have the right to yell "Fire", whether there is one or not, in my own home. The difference is that in a crowded theatre, yelling it could cause panic, injury, etc. The compelling good of the masses limits my free speech rights.
fred rosenberger wrote: . . . Truth does not really enter into it here.
I agree that the overwhelming benefit to the many …
But, if you shout, “fire!” at home, everybody there knows whether it is true.
Joined: Oct 14, 2002
The context for this resolution was specifically aimed at curtailing criticism of religion, and was initiated and relentlessly driven within the U.N. (for a decade?) by the OIC (Org. Islamic Cooperation).
So the question about the Danish cartoons wasn't really rhetorical. In this example, the resolution would call on the Danish government to censor the cartoons criticizing Muhammad. It could be applied also to stopping Neo-Nazis in the U.S. from parading through Jewish communities, and so on.
Another non-rhetorical question is: Who do you think is unbiased and smart enough to judge such situations?
And another: Isn't free speech most critical when tyranny is on the march?
My own take is that - in an imperfect world - we should err on the side of strongly defending free speech.
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Any religion worth its salt can stand up to criticism.
Joined: Oct 14, 2002
The actual "shouting 'fire' in a theatre" idea was actually part of a bad legal decision, ah well.