[ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor

[Stefano Vaj]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:19 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
<painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> Il 27/04/2009 17.40, John K Clark ha scritto:
>> <painlord2k at libero.it> Wrote:
>>> Is it really free speech?
>
>> It's irrelevant today.
>
> It is relevant, because free speech must be tolerated but action must be
> not.

I am hardly an unconditional fan of the US legal system, but I think
that the dominant interpretation by US current case law of the First
Amendement is reasonable and balanced enough.

OTOH, what exactly is the connection between Holmes reasoning on the
punishment of false alarms and a possible claim, e.g., that the Night
of Saint Barthelemy never took place?

A false alarm creates a rushing towards the exit that may pointlessly
kill people.

Would the second scenario suggest that it is good to kill protestants
and encourage people to do so? or that one should become a catholic,
since catholics would be allegedly innocent of the behaviour blamed on
them? or prevent interested parties to contradict the theory, and the
others to form an independent opinion by comparing the existing
sources? :-/

Label, defamation, inducement, istigation and apology of crime are
distinct crimes, which are already punished by independent provisions,
and I do believe that a community may live well enough by restricting
prosecution, as far as speech is concerned, to those conducts.

-- 
Stefano Vaj