Hacker News Reader

Comment by skuhn | Hacker News Reader

Freedom of speech must have limits.

The classic analogy is that a person shouldn't be allowed to shout "FIRE" and thereby cause panic in a crowded theater, when there is no such fire. The right of the one person to (falsely) speak is outweighed by the right of the many people present to their own safety.

Trump saying "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" [1] is clearly equivalent to shouting "FIRE". He has not won the election, he does not have more popular votes or more electoral college votes, and he has presented no proof or substantive argument to contradict this narrative.

That Twitter should put a warning label on statements from powerful people that are objectively false is really the least they can do. To let Trump spread lies without any comment before now has been wholly irresponsible. I wish that Twitter didn't provide a platform for misinformation in the first place.

[1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13250998450450718...

View on HN

I'd like to point out that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a rhetorical analogy that was invented to justify the suppression of legitimate political speech. (Namely to silence opposition to the draft.)

That's true, and was obviously an overreach in 1919. That it was dialed back in 1969 to limit banning speech likely to incite a riot is much more reasonable to my mind.

I do not think it is unreasonable to assume Trump stating he had won was actually an attempt to incite riots and looting. He seems to really enjoy chaos. Into the history books by hook or crook.

> Trump saying "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" [1] is clearly equivalent to shouting "FIRE".

No, it’s not equivalent at all because it doesn’t present any immediate danger. The reason yelling “fire” is a problem is not because it’s a lie, it’s because it requires immediate and possibly dangerous behavior (evacuate as quickly as possible).

There was a bomb threat in Philly yesterday. His speech is dangerous and he should be shut down if it is inciting similar violence and factually false (which it is.) There are armed protestors in Airzona outside of poll counting places:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-protests-ari...

That is dangerous and is not protected by the first amendment.

You're right that it doesn't present an immediate danger on the order of seconds or minutes in the same way as my analogy.

However, I personally believe that his false speech does present an immediate danger to the public on the order of days or weeks.

The limits you're talking about have always been enforced by governments because, ya know, the people agreed those were reasonable. We actually get a say in what our standards of speech actually are.

Not an unelected king who rules by fiat on a platform used by 10's or hundreds of millions of people.

That's a very American point of view that recently displayed it's weaknesses in France the last few years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com