<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sevenless</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s ironic when people use this quote to justify banning &amp;quot;harmful speech&amp;quot;, not knowing it was an excuse for jailing peaceful protesters under the police-state 1918 Sedition Act. &amp;#x27;Shouting &amp;quot;fire&amp;quot; in a crowded theater&amp;#x27; is a phrase from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.&amp;#x27;s opinion in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant&amp;#x27;s speech in opposition to the draft was not protected free speech under the First Amendment.&lt;p&gt;Holmes Jr&amp;#x27;s opinion was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).</text><parent_chain><item><author>rm_-rf_slash</author><text>&amp;quot;Free speech&amp;quot; is not &amp;quot;free beer.&amp;quot;  Shouting &amp;quot;fire&amp;quot; in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free.&lt;p&gt;As an American, I have the right to bear arms (ok the constitution actually says not to infringe on &amp;quot;a well-regulated militia&amp;quot; but bear with me), but not the right to spray automatic gunfire wherever I please.&lt;p&gt;I disagree with your assertion that &amp;quot;our society doesn&amp;#x27;t view free speech as a consistent principle.&amp;quot;  Of course we do. Free expression is a staple of Western civilization, and shows us how far we have come from mandated religion and the sanctity of the nobility.&lt;p&gt;However, free expression can be damaging in certain circumstances. It is a testament to the strength of our civilization and our values that we find ways to mitigate the harm from certain kinds of expression, rather than scrapping the 1st Amendment altogether.  It lasted over 200 years, why not 200 more?</text></item><item><author>sevenless</author><text>Some other legal restrictions on communication that aren&amp;#x27;t normally included in the &amp;quot;free speech&amp;quot; debate:&lt;p&gt;* Distributing pirated media&amp;#x2F;breaking copyright or trademarks&lt;p&gt;* Slander and libel laws&lt;p&gt;* HIPAA and medical information privacy laws&lt;p&gt;* Sharing information for insider trading&lt;p&gt;* Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information&lt;p&gt;* Breaching attorney-client privilege&lt;p&gt;* Laws governing how jurors are allowed to communicate&lt;p&gt;* FCC and obscenity laws in US media&lt;p&gt;* Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal)&lt;p&gt;* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe&lt;p&gt;* US anti-boycott provisions that ban &amp;quot;furnishing information&amp;quot; about doing business with certain countries&lt;p&gt;* Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!)&lt;p&gt;There are many others. The point is we&amp;#x27;re always a bit selective about what counts as free speech, and there are lots of exceptions, some very well motivated.&lt;p&gt;These articles about &amp;quot;free speech is in danger&amp;quot; seem to be unnecessarily abstract: if you want to discuss the problems with Islam or the merits of social justice or whatever, don&amp;#x27;t argue about the way you&amp;#x27;re having the debate, just have the debate. Because our society doesn&amp;#x27;t really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Freedom of speech is in retreat</title><url>http://www.economist.com/news/international/21699906-freedom-speech-retreat-muzzle-grows-tighter</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>forgotpwtomain</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t see why you think that one shouldn&amp;#x27;t be able to shout &amp;#x27;fire&amp;#x27; in a crowded theater, and be prosecuted accordingly for inciting a riot and damage to the property if such were the case (but not for the speech itself).&lt;p&gt;The problem with your position, is since we aren&amp;#x27;t dealing with &amp;#x27;what did happen&amp;#x27; but with &amp;#x27;what could have happened&amp;#x27;  it becomes an ambiguous and potentially abusive provision - highly subjective to personal biases.</text><parent_chain><item><author>rm_-rf_slash</author><text>&amp;quot;Free speech&amp;quot; is not &amp;quot;free beer.&amp;quot;  Shouting &amp;quot;fire&amp;quot; in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free.&lt;p&gt;As an American, I have the right to bear arms (ok the constitution actually says not to infringe on &amp;quot;a well-regulated militia&amp;quot; but bear with me), but not the right to spray automatic gunfire wherever I please.&lt;p&gt;I disagree with your assertion that &amp;quot;our society doesn&amp;#x27;t view free speech as a consistent principle.&amp;quot;  Of course we do. Free expression is a staple of Western civilization, and shows us how far we have come from mandated religion and the sanctity of the nobility.&lt;p&gt;However, free expression can be damaging in certain circumstances. It is a testament to the strength of our civilization and our values that we find ways to mitigate the harm from certain kinds of expression, rather than scrapping the 1st Amendment altogether.  It lasted over 200 years, why not 200 more?</text></item><item><author>sevenless</author><text>Some other legal restrictions on communication that aren&amp;#x27;t normally included in the &amp;quot;free speech&amp;quot; debate:&lt;p&gt;* Distributing pirated media&amp;#x2F;breaking copyright or trademarks&lt;p&gt;* Slander and libel laws&lt;p&gt;* HIPAA and medical information privacy laws&lt;p&gt;* Sharing information for insider trading&lt;p&gt;* Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information&lt;p&gt;* Breaching attorney-client privilege&lt;p&gt;* Laws governing how jurors are allowed to communicate&lt;p&gt;* FCC and obscenity laws in US media&lt;p&gt;* Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal)&lt;p&gt;* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe&lt;p&gt;* US anti-boycott provisions that ban &amp;quot;furnishing information&amp;quot; about doing business with certain countries&lt;p&gt;* Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!)&lt;p&gt;There are many others. The point is we&amp;#x27;re always a bit selective about what counts as free speech, and there are lots of exceptions, some very well motivated.&lt;p&gt;These articles about &amp;quot;free speech is in danger&amp;quot; seem to be unnecessarily abstract: if you want to discuss the problems with Islam or the merits of social justice or whatever, don&amp;#x27;t argue about the way you&amp;#x27;re having the debate, just have the debate. Because our society doesn&amp;#x27;t really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Freedom of speech is in retreat</title><url>http://www.economist.com/news/international/21699906-freedom-speech-retreat-muzzle-grows-tighter</url></story>