> Free speech doesn't include the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatre.
It most certainly does! There is absolutely nothing to prevent one from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. In fact, any attempt to legislate a prohibition against such behaviour would, in all civilized countries and legal systems, constitute unlawful prior restraint. You are confusing (as are all the myriad idiots who keep repeating this fictitious statement) prior restraint with positive law. Nothing prevents you from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre (or anywhere else for that matter). However the proof of the FACT that you shouted "FIRE", and the proof of the FACT that this caused panic and injury, and proof of the FACT that the act of shouting "FIRE" caused pandemonium and injury will lead to a conviction for the offense of RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT or other offences against positive law. It is not the shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theatre that is unlawful, it is the reckless act and the reckless disregard for the consequences of that act which is criminal. In fact, if one were to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and everyone simply ignored it, no offense would have been committed at all! Please keep your facts straight and do not abridge and summarize to the point of absolute absurdity! > Neither does it include the freedom to carry out a DDOS on the fire brigade > control room. This, of course, falls in the same category. You are totally free to DDoS the fire brigade control room. It is not illegal nor can such action be prohibited by positive law. It is however entirely possible that the consequence of such behaviour is perilous to property, life and limb; and that as a consequence the act itself becomes reckless endangerment ONLY AFTER IT HAS BEEN COMMITTED. There is not, and cannot be, any lawful prior restraint in this case either. > You aren't allowed to levy a toll on the roads and except your mates - roads > are neutral. Of course you can, and governments do it all the time. > But that doesn't invalidate the speed limit or the obligation to drive on the > left. Once again, you are confusing prior restraint with the consequence of doing an action. The Act itself cannot be prohibited. Their may be consequences assigned to having proven that an act was done, but the doing of the act is not and cannot be prohibited. Of course, both the United States and the UK have become Fascist states, and as such it is reasonable to expect that they will behave like Fascists. -- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org
