| The Government must restrict someone's right to free speech if they present a Clear and Present Danger. |
|
|
|
Asked 2 years ago
by SuperFlyNinjaGuy  United Kingdom |
|
About
|
9 Points
|
Who is going to determine what kind of speech is a "Clear and Present Danger"? What is thought to be dangerous speech by one may not be to another. Restricting ones speech is something that we should not do.
In the US there are already many restrictions on free speech --- certain words and phrases stated will get you arrested for hate crimes, sexual harassment, and saying hijack at the wrong place will get you put in jail.
It is human nature to restrict what others say or hear, you can see it happening on this web site every day by how people address each other.
Oliver Wendell Holmes seemed to think so...he stated that "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre" could present a "clear and present danger". The ruling, it should be noted, was in regards to WW1 protesters right to distribute pamphlets opposing the draft which hampered the government's recruitment efforts for the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater