>>105068456>Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.Depends on the consequence.
Someone calls you a hurtful term, you do not have carte blanche to hurt them. Effectively, saying something hurtful is protected from someone retaliating with physical violence under the law. This includes racial slurs, but not calls to action such as inciting a riot or other forms of violence. A call to action is not protected speech because it's more than just speech. It's not what you're saying that's being prohibited. You can say "fire" all you like in a movie theater. Screaming it and panicking as though there is one is not. Both the same word, what is being said is not restricted. Rather, trying to subvert the public into a state where injury or violence is likely.
Additionally, the "fire in a crowded theater" ruling comes from a very interesting case. During Woodrow Wilson's presidency (and that becomes relevant here) movie theaters needed time to change movie reels. It was not uncommon for the government to actually hire or pay people to stand up at this point to a captive audience (captive not being literal here) and recite a patriotic poem, limerick or short speech espousing the virtues of America. Interrupting such a speech was seen as extremely unpatriotic by the government at that time:
Woodrow Wilson felt that ANY expressed verbal dissent or criticism of the government was considered treason and not protected speech. In fact, he passed several unconstitutional acts such as the alien and sedition acts prohibiting criticism of the government openly.
To return to the point proper, however: If someone says something hurtful or insulting, up to and including racial slurs - They ARE protected from assault and violence under the law. If an individual were to assault someone for saying something along those lines, then the person saying such a slur or racial remark is protected from prosecution, but the assailant most assuredly isn't.
