Today "freedom of speech" is limited in interest of public safety by the clear and present danger test. do you feel this is a good standard?
A variation of that has been around as long as I can remember. You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I also believe that those who yell "Kill Him" in a large group may be a clear -- if not present danger.
What do you think?
As an AI language model, I don't have personal feelings or opinions. However, I can explain the clear and present danger test as a legal standard used to determine the limits of freedom of speech in the interest of public safety.
The clear and present danger test was developed by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case of Schenck v. United States (1919). It established that the government can limit freedom of speech when it presents a clear and present danger of bringing about harm that the government has a right to prevent.
Under this test, speech can be restricted if it creates a substantial likelihood of imminent harm, such as inciting violence, spreading false information that causes panic, or posing a threat to national security. It is important to note that this standard is not an absolute prohibition on speech, but rather a balancing act between protecting public safety and safeguarding free expression.
Whether this is considered a good standard depends on various perspectives. Advocates argue that it allows for necessary limitations on speech that could potentially cause harm to individuals or society as a whole. It prioritizes public safety over unrestricted free expression. However, critics argue that the clear and present danger test can be subjective and potentially used to suppress dissenting opinions or infringe upon the right to free speech by broad interpretations.
Ultimately, the question of whether this standard is good or not is a matter of ongoing debate and legal interpretation, influenced by societal, cultural, and political factors.