politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
STOP GIVING THE RIGHT AMMO YOU FUCKING DUMBASS!
In any case, isn't this basically the whole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example of speech that isn't protected and is explicitly criminal? Charge his ass.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech for decades now.
...when there's an actual fire, right? Otherwise your just endangering people by causing a crowd to panic.
Edit - looked it up, goes back to Schenck v. United States, which basically states that the context of otherwise protected speech can render it criminal. The case wasn't about shouting fire in a theater, but it produced that example to illustrate their reasoning.
That was overturned in 69. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]
Huh. I wonder if any injuries that occured would fall under that. Like if someone yelled fire and you got trampled by a panicked crowd and broke a few bones... would yelling fire in that case be assault?
Initial post stands - charge his ass! ...but now more from curiosity to see what the courts would do with it than anything else.
... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death.
And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death)
No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts.
But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it.
This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn't whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.
You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace.
Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer's intent wasn't to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so!
Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct?
You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay.
I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected.
It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater.
No, the case was about protesting war.
So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned.
I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression.
No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law.
If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned.
Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck.
Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless.
"Free speech is yelling theater in a crowded fire."