Read your history; it already is. Oliver Wendell Holmes Supreme Court decision states you cannot yell FIRE! in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
But that is not my history.
Have an adult explain to you to whom I'm speaking.
The question did not specify a country. Why would I refer to an American court decision?
Look, Gump, I'm responding to the Darkice, not you. Have an adult explain that to you. Slowly. Several times. Now, go outside and play.
Boy grandpa, you sure are cranky in the morning.
You seem to have a problem with my "Freedom of Speech"; I advise you to back down. You already have wounds to lick.
Watcha gonna do jazzpiano? Huh? Poke..poke..poke..
A long time ago in the USA in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court made a distinction between free speech and a free press, having to do with giving people who are offered a point of view time to deliberate on whether that point of view is rash. The particular case that was in front of the Supreme Court in the 19th Century involved an American newspaper article of that time that had called for a specific black man to be lynched. The court noted that it had been well-established that calling for a lynching in a speech to an assembled angry crowd was even then clearly against the law. However, that court's 19th Century decision was that a newspaper editor was legally free to call for a lynching since the reader's of a newspaper had more time in a less emotionally charged atmosphere to reflect upon the dubiousness of that editor's opinion. <br />
Since that time in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court in the USA has probably somewhat reversed itself on the subject of editorial freedoms for newspapermen. However, a practical distinction still exists between free press and free speech for the reason that was stated by that court in the 19th Century, and it is definitely wise to legislate against certain types of speech to pre-assembled crowds that can result in those crowds becoming emotionally overcharged with a result of that crowd then attempting to engage in some type of unruly. Whether it is wise to put similar restrictions on newspapers and radio broadcasters and netizens (Internet journalists) is still up for debate even more than a century on from that court decision.
No, then who will decide what is acceptable and what is not.
it is, for instance it is illegal to yell fire in a theater.
Never. Not ever.
No, everyone should be entitled to free speech, but they best be able to take the responses and reprocussions that will ensue afterwards.
The question is a no-brainer, but so are many of the answers.<br />
Is it ok to slander someone - perhaps make up stories that they someone is a paedophile to discredit them so that you can get a promotion or elected or whatever?
Not really but then the problem is some opinions are actually calls for violence , so allowing that sort of discourse could mean not protecting a group of vulnerable people. We must be able to hear criticism, some people have come to consider any mild criticism as a violation of their human rights.
**** no! ******* censorship, bollocks.