# Fools and Ignoramuses Who Don't Understand the Constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 31, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517 "2003-03-31T19:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Tony\_Montana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tony\_Montana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Montana)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/41 "2003-04-01T06:13:31Z")
I’d just like to say: I KNOW MY RIGHTS!! ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/42 "2003-04-01T07:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > Most of what you said made sense, but you lost me here. The press has a right to be wrong. If Arnett got his story wrong about what the US government did, then they’d be quite correct in requesting a retraction, a correction, whatever. > > But they would not be correct in _demanding_ anything; if they are in position to demand on the basis of legal (if factually incorrect) speech, then that gets into squidgy territory vis-a-vis the First Amendment. What legal difference, if any, is there between a journalist (purposefully or unintentionally) putting some facts forward (that later turn out to be incorrect) in an article and the decision made about yelling “FIRE!” in a place such as a movie theater? It seems to me that both represent potentially dangerous aberrations from the factual representation of the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/43 "2003-04-01T07:24:44Z")
—The Constitution does not protect you from ME.— Oh yeah? What if I take the Fifth? Mathematicians estimate that it is at least five times more powerful than the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/44 "2003-04-01T08:11:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maximum C \* > \*\ ***SPOOFE** : At what point did FOX News become the arbiter of what is moronic and what isn’t? Are you prepared to say that anyone who publicly expresses distaste for what our troops are doing is a “moron” and will “get what is coming to them”? > > \*\* What? You think they should have heaped praise upon him? Fox called it like they saw it. If they’re right or wrong, who cares? The viewing public can smite them the same way they smited the moron. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/45 "2003-04-01T08:27:02Z")
> [@](#): > > SPOOFE: At what point did FOX News become the arbiter of what is moronic and what isn’t? Whoever said Fox News was the arbiter? I sure didn’t. **I** call him a moron. > [@](#): > > Are you prepared to say that anyone who publicly expresses distaste for what our troops are doing is a “moron” and will “get what is coming to them”? Now I also call YOU a moron. There’s a world of difference, moron, between “expressing distaste” for someone and “wishing death” on someone. For example, I express distaste for you by calling you a moron. I do not, however, wish you will die just so I can claim moral superiority: “See? He shoulda agreed with me, 'cuz then he wouldn’t be dead!” ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/46 "2003-04-01T08:59:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tony Montana \* > \*\*I’d just like to say: > > I KNOW MY RIGHTS!! \*\* Yes, but do you know your **LEFTS??** ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/47 "2003-04-01T12:16:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maximum C \* > They intimately know that the First Amendment stands as a bullwark for learning, understanding, and tolerence. When those ideals are attacked, they describe it in terms of the First Amendment. Well, I stand as a bullwark for learning, understanding, and tolerence too, but if people complained that a certain plan was anti-Brickerish, I think listeners could be forgiven for raising an eyebrow. Your point seems to be that since it’s in the same general ballpark, it’s fine. Not what this board is about. See, e.g., ignorance, comma, fighting of. And when I said, “Stop whining about the First Amendment unless you’re complaining about government action,” in the OP, I stick by it; it’s true that an action which begins as a private one, _when seeking to enforce a decree, judgement, or injunction through the court system_, may be implicated by the First Amendment. But of course at that point, it’s a freakin’ GOVERNMENT ACTION, isn’t it? It’s nice to know that you’re willing to stand up for the fools and ignoramuses; Lord knows they need the support. But while I suppose I can abide the sympathy for them, you really ought to keep your claims on the right side of accuracy. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/48 "2003-04-01T12:47:50Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Maximum C_ > I shiver to think of what other countries began their decent into dark ages by attacking centers of learning and silencing dissent through fingers-in-the-ears cultural hatred. THIS is why people claim the First Amendment is violated in cases like Arnetts. They might have the legal application wrong, but I doubt many of you know all the wrinkles of the First Amendment doctrine either. They intimately know that the First Amendment stands as a bullwark for learning, understanding, and tolerence. When those ideals are attacked, they describe it in terms of the First Amendment. Actually, I think the Arnett case is a violation of the Third Amendment. After all, it’s clear the Third Amendment stands as a bulwark against placing soldiers in our homes. Arnett’s firing is an erosion of this right. First, the military complains about Arnett and Geraldo, next thing you know you’re saying “Would you like coffee with that MRE, lieutenant?” God, it’s easy to make up bullshit constitutional arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/49 "2003-04-01T14:58:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maximum C \* > **Ott** : It was my understanding that _Turner v. Safely_ dealt with the first amendment rights of prisoners, not with marital rights. I dont see a need for reporter cites in an online forum, either. Must still be in law school 😉 > > -C \*\* And this would be why I include reporter dites when referencing case law… [Turner v Safley](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/turnervsafley.html) was a challenge to two Missouri prison regulations, a ban on inmate-to-inmate correspondence and a restriction on inmates marrying (not each other) without the permission of the prison superintendent who could give said permission only if the reason for the marriage was "compelling. SCOTUS upheld the correspondence restriction as “reasonably related to legitimate security interests.” The marriage restrction fell because > [@](#): > > The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life. First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment. These elements are an important and significant aspect of the marital relationship. In addition, many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock). These incidents of marriage, like the religious and personal aspects of the marriage commitment, are unaffected by the fact of confinement or the pursuit of legitimate corrections goals. > > Taken together, we conclude that these remaining elements are sufficient to form a constitutionally protected marital relationship in the prison context. While I have not attended law school (I am a trained paralegal) it is my considered opinion that your tenure there will be much more successful if you 1) recognize the importance of proper citation and 2) actually read opinions before popping off on them. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/50 "2003-04-01T15:15:24Z")
Personally, I don’t understand why this constitution thing is so important to you all; if it needed to be amended _that many_ times (what was it, typos?), how good can it be? Scrap it and get a new one. : D&R : ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/51 "2003-04-01T15:20:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*What legal difference, if any, is there between a journalist (purposefully or unintentionally) putting some facts forward (that later turn out to be incorrect) in an article and the decision made about yelling “FIRE!” in a place such as a movie theater? It seems to me that both represent potentially dangerous aberrations from the factual representation of the situation. \*\* The difference is the “clear and present danger” issue. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is constitutionally unprotected speech because of the immediate danger posed by the speech (i.e. death or injury from the resulting stampede for the exits). Factual inaccuracies in a news story do not have the same potential for immediate physical harm. ---
**Author:** ![Tony\_Montana](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/278dde/32.png) [@Tony\_Montana](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tony_Montana)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/52 "2003-04-01T15:35:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tony Montana \* > \*\*I’d just like to say: > > I KNOW MY RIGHTS!! \*\* I would also like to add : Your not the boss of me, It’s a free country! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/53 "2003-04-01T17:22:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*—The Constitution does not protect you from ME.— > > Oh yeah? What if I take the Fifth? Mathematicians estimate that it is at least five times more powerful than the First Amendment. \*\* Moron mathematicians, maybe. The Fifth Amendment is five times AS powerful as the First Amendment; that’s only Four times MORE powerful. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/54 "2003-04-01T18:06:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > What legal difference, if any, is there between a journalist (purposefully or unintentionally) putting some facts forward (that later turn out to be incorrect) in an article and the decision made about yelling “FIRE!” in a place such as a movie theater? It seems to me that both represent potentially dangerous aberrations from the factual representation of the situation. Time; the opportunity to reflect; the lack of need for immediate fight-or-flight reactions and/or panic to kick in. We’ve had a number of unfounded ‘news’ reports (it’s impossible to call the ‘Christian’ Broadcast Network a news outlet, and it’s getting increasingly difficult to say it about Fox as well) since the beginning of the war, that US coalition troops had uncovered Iraqi WMD, or that Iraq had fired such weapons at coalition troops. What are the consequences? A poster here starts a premature Pit or GD thread, and a few other people around the country briefly get excited. Deaths and injuries due to false reports: zero. Now the ‘Fire in a movie theatre’ bit: as we’ve recently been reminded, something like that can result in people getting killed in the stampede. People think they don’t have \*time[i/] to reflect; they just _react_ in ways that can themselves be lethal. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/55 "2003-04-01T18:11:27Z")
Oops. Didn’t notice there was a page 2, and that you’d beat me to it, **Otto**. And much more succinctly (and without coding errors too), I might add. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/56 "2003-04-01T18:17:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*We’ve had a number of unfounded ‘news’ reports (snip) since the beginning of the war, that US coalition troops had uncovered Iraqi WMD, or that Iraq had fired such weapons at coalition troops. What are the consequences? A poster here starts a premature Pit or GD thread, and a few other people around the country briefly get excited. Deaths and injuries due to false reports: zero. \*\* I dunno, have you seen **Milo** lately??? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/57 "2003-04-01T22:47:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Otto \* > \*\*The difference is the “clear and present danger” issue. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is constitutionally unprotected speech because of the immediate danger posed by the speech (i.e. death or injury from the resulting stampede for the exits). Factual inaccuracies in a news story do not have the same potential for immediate physical harm. \*\* Unless, of course, there actually is a fire. ---
**Author:** ![Ace309](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ace309/32/1050_2.png) [@Ace309](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace309)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/58 "2003-04-01T23:37:22Z")
Pfft. Don’t get technical, boyo. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/59 "2003-04-02T01:01:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by asterion \* > \*\*Unless, of course, there actually is a fire. \*\* That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517/60 "2003-04-02T04:08:28Z")
[Sinister forces at work: Madonna video pulled. (In GD)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174308) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fools-and-ignoramuses-who-dont-understand-the-constitution/165517.md?page=4)