09-14-2020, 08:35 AM
Demonos;10716 Wrote:In the United States, Schenck v. United States, (3) argued that one can not go into a movie theater and yell, "fire!" Should one's speech in the US incite an action that would harm someone else, that statement is not protected free speech. When a "clear and present danger" exists, it can not be ignored that such speech is criminal.
That argument was used to try and prevent people from criticizing the draft, and punish them for doing so. Such speech was considered "dangerous" by that particular lawyer. It says so even in your source. Facts of the case:
"During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment."
(Schenck and Baer won that appeal, by the way, and the original case was overturned.) Everyone seems to have a different opinion about what "dangerous" speech looks like. It's a subjective matter. That's why people in the U.S. are leery of hate speech laws. They are amazingly easy to abuse and leaders are human enough to do just that, if they think they can get away with it.
That being said, that's my stance IRL. Online groups are basically exclusive clubs and they should be able to ban anyone for any reason. So, regarding Lazarus and online discussion, I agree with joWhatup. It seems the passing of this law would be extraneous.