Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

the consensus thus far has been any speech leading to harm/death is not allowed/legal (i.e. screaming FIRE in a theater). This is no different, we can sit here all day and try to assess who should be in charge but there is clear evidence InfoWars is leading to armed morons showing up in pizza places and/or harassing parents of school shooting victims. If this case was more nuanced i.e. suppressing political ideology i could see your point, but this is a pretty clear cut case of hate speech leading to real consequences


> any speech leading to harm/death is not allowed/legal

No, this is not where the line is drawn. In the case of first-amendment protection of free speech, the speech has to induce imminent lawless action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Thus, hate speech and speech that advocates violent revolution is protected.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: