I’d just like to say:
I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!
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 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.
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.
Whoever said Fox News was the arbiter? I sure didn’t. I call him a moron.
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!”
Yes, but do you know your LEFTS??
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
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.
And this would be why I include reporter dites when referencing case law…
Turner v Safley 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
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.
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 :
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.
I would also like to add :
Your not the boss of me, It’s a free country!
Moron mathematicians, maybe. The Fifth Amendment is five times AS powerful as the First Amendment; that’s only Four times MORE powerful.
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.
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.
**
I dunno, have you seen Milo lately??? :dubious:
Unless, of course, there actually is a fire.
Pfft. Don’t get technical, boyo.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.