PrepTest 81, Section 3, Question 3
Politician: The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech. For example, it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded mall if the only intent is to play a practical joke; the government may ban publication of information about military operations and the identity of undercover agents; and extortion threats and conspiratorial agreements are also criminal acts. The criminalization of these forms of speech is justified, since, although they are very different from each other, they are all likely to lead directly to serious harm.
Politician: The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech. For example, it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded mall if the only intent is to play a practical joke; the government may ban publication of information about military operations and the identity of undercover agents; and extortion threats and conspiratorial agreements are also criminal acts. The criminalization of these forms of speech is justified, since, although they are very different from each other, they are all likely to lead directly to serious harm.
Politician: The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech. For example, it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded mall if the only intent is to play a practical joke; the government may ban publication of information about military operations and the identity of undercover agents; and extortion threats and conspiratorial agreements are also criminal acts. The criminalization of these forms of speech is justified, since, although they are very different from each other, they are all likely to lead directly to serious harm.
Politician: The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech. For example, it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded mall if the only intent is to play a practical joke; the government may ban publication of information about military operations and the identity of undercover agents; and extortion threats and conspiratorial agreements are also criminal acts. The criminalization of these forms of speech is justified, since, although they are very different from each other, they are all likely to lead directly to serious harm.
In the statements above, the politician argues that
it is legitimate to prohibit some forms of speech on the grounds that they are likely to lead directly to serious harm
a form of speech can be restricted only if it is certain that it would lead directly to serious harm
in all but a few cases, restricting speech eventually leads directly to serious harm
any form of speech may, one way or another, lead directly to serious harm
all but one of several possible reasons for restricting freedom of speech are unjustified
0 Comments