more fun, 'A Renegade History of the United States'

Strong claims need strong evidence. So the choices are between a) Some conjecture that a social media account was briefly taken down as part of a right-wing conspiracy by a major publicly traded US corporation OR b) yet another example in a long history of accounts being auto-flagged by overly-aggressive algorithms and then later being restored by a human moderator without proper transparency.

Threats are the gray area. I don't view words as violent action, people can say whatever they want. A person acting on it is a different story, including preparations like a person collecting materials for a bomb or something like that.

I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.

In a case against free speech, the “fire!” screamer is Exhibit A. Even those who argue in defense of civil liberties and the right of free speech stipulate that these rights do not include the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. This is the one case where all parties seem to agree that the right to free speech is not as important as other rights. But to override the right of free speech, for any reason, is a dangerous precedent, and never necessary. Certainly it is not necessary in the case of the person who yells “fire!” The rights of theater patrons can be protected without legally prohibiting free speech. For example, theater owners could contract with their customers not to yell “fire!” (unless, of course, there is a fire in the theater). The contract might take the form of an agree- ment, in small print, on the back of a theater ticket or a large message on wall posters placed throughout the theater, prohibit- ing any disturbance of the entertainment or singling out the shouting of the word, “fire!” But however the prohibition appeared, the contract would effectively put an end to the sup- posed conflict between the right of free speech and other rights. For the person who yelled “fire!” would then simply be violating 69 70 Defending the Undefendable “Oh, miss, would you happen to know the Spanish word for ‘Fire’?” a contract and could be dealt with accordingly. The situation would be entirely analogous to that of someone under contract to sing at a concert, but who refuses to sing, and instead lectures on economics. What is involved in both cases is not the right of free speech, but the obligation to honor a contract. Why look at the prohibition in this way? There are several important rea- sons. First, the market would be much more effective in removing threats to the public health and safety—such as the one posed by the “fire!” screamer—than an all-encompassing governmental prohibition. A market contract system would work more effi- ciently because theater entrepreneurs would be in competition with each other with regard to the efficiency with which they prevented outbursts disruptive to the audience. Thus, they would have a great incentive to diminish the number and sever- ity of such outburts. The government, on the other hand, offers no incentive. No one automatically loses money when the gov- ernment fails to maintain order in a theater. A second reason we can expect greater success from the mar- ket than from the government is that the market is, by its very nature, more flexible. The government can only make one all- embracing rule, with at best, one or two exceptions. The market does not have such restrictions. The flexibility and complexity of the market are limited only by the inventiveness of the actors in it. Third, the government system of protection against yelling “fire!”—outright prohibition—violates the rights of perhaps one of the most oppressed minorities: the sadists and the masochists. What of the rights of the sadists who enjoy yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater, and then watching the crowd tear itself to pieces in the resultant mad rush for the exits? What of the masochists who relish the thought of having “fire!” yelled at them while in the confines of a crowded theater with the same mad but “exhilarating” crush at the door? Under the govern- ment system of outright prohibition, these people are denied what may be their most fervent wish—their chance to go out in a blaze of glory. In the flexible market system, however, where there is a demand for a service, a supply will soon arise. Where there is an unfulfilled demand for sado-masochists screaming “fire!” and then watching the frantic crushes, entrepreneurs will rise to the occasion and provide the requisite service. The Person Who Yells “Fire!” in a Crowded Theater 71 Such musings will undoubtedly strike the “straights” on the sado-masochistic question as just so much idle talk. But that is only to be expected. No ruling class ever viewed the plight of their downtrodden with anything but contempt and scorn. Nonaggressing adult sado-masochists have just as much right to their mutually agreeable practices as anyone else. To dismiss the rights of sado-masochists as not being worthy of consideration provides evidence of the fascistic habits of thought to which most “straights” have succumbed. Sado-masochists should be free to indulge in their nonaggressive practices. The public, after all, need not attend any theater which clearly advertises that “unplanned disruptions” will be permitted. Sado-masochists, for their part, would still have to curb their enthusiasm when patronizing “straight” theaters. Finally, unless the prohibition against yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater stems from a private contract, the right of free speech will be in conflict with what is held in very high esteem—namely the rights of people not to have their show interrupted and themselves crushed at the exits. Freedom of speech is at best a weak reed. It is always in dan- ger of being suppressed. Our hold on it is sometimes very tenu- ous indeed. Therefore, anything which tends to weaken it even further must be opposed. There is hardly a scare tactic better designed to destroy freedom of speech than the creation of a false conflict between the right to speak freely and other rights held in vastly higher esteem. Yet this is precisely what the usual interpretation of yelling “fire!” accomplishes. If “exceptions” to the right of free speech are granted, our tenuous hold on the right of free speech is weakened. There are no legitimate excep- tions to the right of free speech. There are no cases in which the right of free speech is in conflict with any other right we hold dear. Therefore, the person who yells “fire!” in a crowded theater can be considered a hero. He forces a consideration of what is involved and what needs to be done to protect a precious right that is endangered.