I considered we all knew and understood THAT sole exception.

Funny, but I even mentioned that in my second-last reply to PeterV.


>So no repercussions against someone who say goes into a crowded theatre and yells 'fire!' causing mayhem and injuries when no fire exists?
>
>
>>>>>Is there any way to forbid such people to speak in the open air? In the Netherlands and Brittain (and other European countries as well) only since very very recently the government is able to 'deport' those people to where they came from. But what to do with people who are born in the country and have no other passport?
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, there is no difference from a Muslim Cleric inciting violence to a Christian Fundamentalist doing the same. In Netherlands and UK he would be deported.
>>>>
>>>>In the USA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has jurisiction over Radio and TV. Howard Stern, a known radio entertainer, has been fined in the past for using inapropriate words. Would they do something in this case? Sadly, I doubt it. IMO the TV network that briadcasted this incitement to violence should be fined and he should be reprimanded, fined and warned.
>>>
>>>Agree. However, I think it would (again) lead to heated debates about 'freedom of speech'. Some people think that everything that can be said, can be said. They defend freedom of speech saying "I fully condemn what he's saying, but I'll always defend his right to say it". I no longer belong to those purists.
>>
>>Well you should belong to such "purists"!
>>It is impossible to set some "standard" of allowable speech.
>>And it most certainly is dangerous to attempt to do so because someone bent on stronger control would either interpret the standard more broadly or amend the standard to include more restrictions. The only SAFE alternative is to allow everything.
>>
>>Now I *might* accept a different yardstick for citizens versus "visitors". But even there I would want some kind of independent body to make a decision as to whether or not some specific words exceeded the limits controlling such individuals. And I would certainly insist that a "citizen" is a "citizen" once declared such, regardless of country of birth or of recent origin.
>>
>>I do not subscribe to the notion that we must abridge our "freedoms" in order to remain "free". An abridged freedom == not free. To pretend to be free would be the worst sin.