Crossing the line

[Little Recordings]

Quite a lot of the time it all depends on any police officers attending if a complaint is received. Some times an officer will make the call to arrest someone if they believe they are inciting violence. The situation is usually the biggest factor in this decision. If a person is spouting off a lot of hate and causing a big commotion which would lead to violence then they would likely be arrested for it. The sort of language you need to be using to do this is quite extreme though.

A okay, thank you for clearing it you for me.
As a person who has not lived in US or UK and is not familiar with the laws, I was operating on assumptions. But thank you for enlightening me to a certain degree in that issue.

 

[TheBatteryChicken]

A okay, thank you for clearing it you for me.
As a person who has not lived in US or UK and is not familiar with the laws, I was operating on assumptions. But thank you for enlightening me to a certain degree in that issue.

The UK is much more lenient on things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Over here we aren't as extreme as in America over what people can and cant do. We also don't keep people in illegal prisons unlawfully

 

[Taofledermaus]

In this day and age, doing something like that is more likely to get you shot than get a lot of views.

 

[TheBatteryChicken]

In this day and age, doing something like that is more likely to get you shot than get a lot of views.

If he got shot, he would have easily double the views

 

[Little Recordings]

If he got shot, he would have easily double the views

It would probably get Content ID matched somehow and flagged.

 

[TReau]

Isn't the same as, and before go on, I am not from US so I might be wrong, you have the freedom of speech, however hate speech is a illegal and is considered a crime.

So it is even less that there are limits and more, the "you have the freedom of speech, but it does not elude you from the responsibility and the implications caused by your actions".

Am I correct on this one?

I'm not sure I quite understand the wording of your question, but I'll try and answer what I think you're asking. I would say the two go hand in hand--speech and its implications. There are ABSOLUTELY restrictions on speech, many there because if you don't limit speech, the consequences can put the populace at an increased risk of danger.

I would say that the "prank" those guys pulled is a symbolic form of speech, and therefore would fall under the same category as speech under Constitutional law. Some of the limits to our freedom of speech include: obscenity, clear and present danger, fighting words, libel, slander, and conflicting with government interests during times of war. The prank would probably be considered a clear and present danger, as it had the potential to provoke a dangerous situation. But then again, I'm no lawyer. Correct me if I'm wrong.