Yeah, speech can’t cause a reasonable person to have a reasonable fear of harm. Like, calling in a bomb scare. I don’t know the exact parameters, but it’s established that there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
Right. So there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
The argument then isn’t “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I’m against all forms of speech restrictions”. The argument is really “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I don’t see calls for genocide as something that should be banned.” The latter argument is difficult to justify though, which is why the former argument is used by a lot “free speech absolutionists”.
Okay but in the US people can go to jail for death threats. Is that speech crime? Is that the first link in the chain? Or is that a reasonable law?
Yeah, speech can’t cause a reasonable person to have a reasonable fear of harm. Like, calling in a bomb scare. I don’t know the exact parameters, but it’s established that there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
Right. So there are forms of speech that are not permissible.
The argument then isn’t “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I’m against all forms of speech restrictions”. The argument is really “I don’t agree with this law banning calls for genocide because I don’t see calls for genocide as something that should be banned.” The latter argument is difficult to justify though, which is why the former argument is used by a lot “free speech absolutionists”.