> For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire.
This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1].
> He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street").
This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imminent" part of the standard applies to someone telling his pal to "go and mug that guy", not to someone who writes terrible advice for seducing women. Even if those that follow that advice are guilty of sexual assault, it is doubtful this author is placing women in imminent danger of sexual assault.
> Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone.
Again, IANAL, but I doubt that Kickstarter faces real legal liability here. This seems like standard first amendment territory. I am not aware of any constitutional law that forbids running a campaign to fund a book, no matter how bad the advice in that book is. If you can cite relevant statutes or caselaw, or can state a potential civil cause of action, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
> Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that.
It seems firmly on the right side of that line, no matter how distasteful it is.
IMO, it is far more likely that Kickstarter doesn't want to be branded in the public eye as a safe haven for molestation advocates, which I can understand.
To further explain the "fire" point above: What isn't obvious is that, while obviously immoral, the fire example is actually not a good way to test if something should be free speech protected.
Quoting from the article: "The "shouting fire" standard seems to require that the to-be-censored speech be (1) false, (2) said under circumstances in which there is no opportunity for reasoned reflection or debate, and (3) the cause of actual harm by those who hear it."
The problem is people who dislike free speech can argue that yelling "false" things shouldn't be protected. This is leads to selective enforcement.
The more narrowed definition was added in Brandenburg v Ohio tto something is protected under free speech unless it has a likelihood of inciting "Imminent lawless action".
Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)
Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money).
I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.
> Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)
The "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from the supreme court decision in Schenk v. US, which is all but defunct today.
> Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
I don't believe the "imminent" part of that phrase leaves much open for interpretation.
> Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued
Of course not. But as my father (who is a lawyer) is fond of saying, anyone can sue anyone else at any time. That doesn't mean they are likely to succeed.
> I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.
I'll concede that legal liability might be an issue in this case, though that's for lawyers to decide. The point of my original comment was primarily to debunk an outdated legal standard. I got sidetracked with what I will now admit is poor additional legal analysis.
I will now admit my initial analysis was poor because after doing a tad more research, I stumbled into a far more pertinent case. That case is Rice v. Paladin Enterprises [1]. Back in 1983, Paladin Enterprises published a limited-run hitman manual [2]. A decade later, a convicted hitman noted that he had picked up tips from this book; this led a circuit court to hold that book was unprotected speech. This paved the way for civil sanctions against Paladin Enterprises. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and Paladin's insurance company settled for an undisclosed sum.
Drawing parallels to the current issue is left as an exercise for the reader.
This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1].
> He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street").
This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imminent" part of the standard applies to someone telling his pal to "go and mug that guy", not to someone who writes terrible advice for seducing women. Even if those that follow that advice are guilty of sexual assault, it is doubtful this author is placing women in imminent danger of sexual assault.
> Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone.
Again, IANAL, but I doubt that Kickstarter faces real legal liability here. This seems like standard first amendment territory. I am not aware of any constitutional law that forbids running a campaign to fund a book, no matter how bad the advice in that book is. If you can cite relevant statutes or caselaw, or can state a potential civil cause of action, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
> Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that.
It seems firmly on the right side of that line, no matter how distasteful it is.
IMO, it is far more likely that Kickstarter doesn't want to be branded in the public eye as a safe haven for molestation advocates, which I can understand.
1. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio