On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 9:49:01 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 17:05:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:
The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.
Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.
Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.
Total BS. Protesting the draft does not present a real and immediate threat to the public. Falsely yelling fire in a theater does.
I did not write Schenck, OW Holmes did and he is the one who made that
phrase up. It is not a law, just an illiteration in a century old
overturned decision.
But you're badly misinterpreting the history of it and applying false
logic. Holmes used that example in the case
they were hearing which involved speaking out against the US draft.
He compared it to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. The fact
that later courts found that acts like speaking out against the draft
don't rise to the level of yelling fire, does not make yelling fire
protected speech. Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater presents
a real, immediate threat to the public, with a stampede with people
being hurt and/or dying being an obvious direct consequence of the
action. It's miles away from protesting the draft.
That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.
Again, apples and oranges.
You don't think that is dangerous speech? Weren't you one of those who
were bitching about Charlottesville?
I was condemning Trump in that case. First for his failure to come
forth and speak out against the Nazis, KKK, etc. and then days later
when he said there were very fine people marching together with that ilk.
I never said those white supremacists didn't have a right to march, to
be there. Again, this is miles away from actually yelling fire in a
crowded theater. Those sickos in VA, are entitled to their beliefs,
to hold their rally. So too are people on the other side. Both are
expressing real opinions and political positions. In the case of yelling
fire in a crowded theater, it's sole purpose is a lie to create panic.
You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.
No, you just need to understand that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech, for obvious reasons. If you feel otherwise, show us the actual decisions.
There will never be a case to cite since it is not illegal.
You don't need an actual case and
AFAIK there are none because no one
as of yet has been stupid enough to try to do it and then claim it's
free speech. In subsequent SC decisions they made it
very clear that actions like that are in fact not protected speech.
All they did was rule that certain examples, eg holding a KKK rally
are protected. You're trying to conflate that with the court
having said that yelling fire is protected, when in fact, they said
no such thing.
People
yell things that cause panic all the time and get away with it.
Show us some examples. I've yet to see any instances in all the
news I've watched. Closest thing would be calling in a bomb
threat, I suppose you're going to tell us that's protected speech
too?
And in fact, it's gone much more the other way in recent years with
all the new hate crime laws. I've seen many cases here where, for
example, some white supremacist leaflets were tossed around
neighborhoods or posted on light poles. All resulted in immediate
major investigations, but IDK how they turned out. One could argue
that just the fact that you're going to be investigated, possibly
charged with one of the new hate crime laws, is already suppression
of free speech.
Again, if you think it is illegal, cite the case in the last 50 years
where a prosecution was successful.
Cite for us any instances where someone has actually done it.
Here, from the US govt Federal Courts Website, look at number one on
the list:
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federa...rces/what-does
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., [S]hout[ing] fire in a crowded theater.).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. OBrien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).