Speech as an act causally linked to a desired consequence unrelated to communication, like falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or commanding a subordinate to shoot someone, or etc., isn’t really protected (I’m not very familiar with US Law, but I can’t think of counterexamples). These limitations don’t usually register as “censorship”.
In the US you can’t directly command someone to shoot someone but you can advocate that someone deserves to be shoot (see Brandenburg v. Ohio)
Thanks, this is what I thought. That would be the difference between my first and third types of speech, and an example of a controversy about how to draw the line.
In the US you can’t directly command someone to shoot someone but you can advocate that someone deserves to be shoot (see Brandenburg v. Ohio)
Thanks, this is what I thought. That would be the difference between my first and third types of speech, and an example of a controversy about how to draw the line.