(August 22, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Well at least you're consistent. By the by, death threats are considered a form of assault here in the states, & probably in Canada as well, so he was pretty clearly breaking the law.I have no doubt he was breaking the law; I just disagree with the law he's broken.
Quote:Do you think that people should be allowed to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or a packed town hall as well?Yup. However I think that instigating a mass panic for no reason should be a crime, as long as you can prove intent. A kid might shout "FIRE" without realizing what the outcome might be, or a crazy person could do the same. I don't think they should be prosecuted.
What you must realise in regard to freedom of speech is that it centers around just that; the freedom to say things. I don't think there are any countries in the world that have banned people from shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater; however they have created crimes which deal with the outcomes of saying it.
This is the difference between limiting the actual freedoms of speech, and criminalizing the outcomes of it. Looking at the "FIRE!" example again, let me compare the two:
1) Under a system which limits the freedom of speech, shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded building / room without their being any actual fire would be an arrestable offense in itself, even if nobody reacted to it.
2) Under a system which criminalizes the outcomes of freedom of speech, shouting "FIRE!" itself would not be a crime, but the person may still be arrested based on the outcomes of the event. For instance, if it causes a mass panic, then an arrest could be made; if not, then no action should be taken.
It's an important difference.
(August 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm)Napoleon Wrote: How about shouting bomb on a plane?See above.
