# So how is this not a violation of the 1st amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2012, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864 "2012-09-16T09:51:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/161 "2012-09-22T14:23:28Z")
colonial, are you a native English speaker? I ask because your interpretation of my postings was the opposite of what I thought I had clearly said, and your interpretation of Holmes’ words is, apparently, unique. Everyone here except you thinks that Holmes was very clear, and no one else thinks he was making a point that falsely yelling “fire” was illegal. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2012, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/162 "2012-09-22T15:54:24Z")
Back to the original topic. Someone did raise the issue of a “chilling effect”. Why should that be such a concern with a free press, and not with the speech of individuals? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2012, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/163 "2012-09-22T22:10:28Z")
It’s always a concern. There’s something else I noticed. Normally when Bible Thumpers oppose a movie, the first thing 1st amendment defenders ask is, “Did any of them actually see the film?” I notice that the US government condemned this film and for all we know it doesn’t even exist yet. Why isn’t the government being criticized for condemning a film they haven’t seen? ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/164 "2012-09-22T22:52:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s always a concern. There’s something else I noticed. Normally when Bible Thumpers oppose a movie, the first thing 1st amendment defenders ask is, “Did any of them actually see the film?” I notice that the US government condemned this film and for all we know it doesn’t even exist yet. Why isn’t the government being criticized for condemning a film they haven’t seen? I believe they were condemning the release video itself, the fake trailer. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2012, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/165 "2012-09-23T17:14:48Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > Frankly, I posted that mostly so lurkers in the thread would have, presented in a straight line, the argument so many of us have made… Suits me. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > No matter how many times… Repetitionville. > [@CurtC](#): > > colonial, are you a native English speaker? Yes. AB English Literature and Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1971); Phi Beta Kappa. How about you? Your posts are drop-out level. > [@CurtC](#): > > I ask because your interpretation of my postings was the opposite of what I thought I had clearly said, You pretty well got your balls hammered flat except for my one immaterial misreading. That is really nothing to hang your hat on, but when you ain’t got nothin you got nothin to lose by making something up. > [@CurtC](#): > > and your interpretation of Holmes’ words is, apparently, unique. Everyone here except you thinks that Holmes was very clear, and no one else thinks he was making a point that falsely yelling “fire” was illegal. Do you know what a fallacy is? The Truth is not a popularity contest. Google _argumentum ad populum_. _Ad populum_ does not apply to expert opinion. However, I do not think anyone who has posted to this thread is an expert in constitutional law. And even an expert may be rebutted. Finally, good old Wiki pulls through again with a fine citation, one which does much to establish the ILlegality act Holmes and the rest of us have been discussing: [New York Times 9/25/1884: “A cry of fire in a crowded theater”](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A06EED8113EEF33A25756C2A96F9C94659FD7CF) Now, I truly am through with this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/166 "2012-09-24T13:40:29Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Repetitionville. Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/167 "2012-09-24T16:33:32Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Probably unconsitutional because he’s speaking on behalf of the government, even if you are not compellled. It’s your government, you pay taxes to it, and in that way you are “compelled” to support it. Then how is this situation different than the State Department asking Google to take down a video? Aren’t they speaking on behalf of the government even though they’re not compelling Google to remove it? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/168 "2012-09-24T17:23:10Z")
Different constitutional provisions. State sponsored prayer implicates the Establishment Clause, not the Free Speech Clause. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/169 "2012-09-24T17:31:21Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Different constitutional provisions. State sponsored prayer implicates the Establishment Clause, not the Free Speech Clause. I understand that they’re different provisions but there’s still an element of “compelling” in each one. How is “Please bow your heads in prayer” more compelling than “Please take down your video”? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/170 "2012-09-24T17:34:39Z")
The Establishment Clause isn’t about compulsion. It’s about things that government can’t do _itself_, rather than things it can’t tell you to do (or not do). A government sponsored prayer is a violation\* regardless of whether anyone is even asked to join in. \*Sometimes. It’s okay if Congress does it, because they always have, and they’d just have ignored SCOTUS if told not to. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/171 "2012-09-24T18:35:43Z")
RNATB, non-sectarian prayers at some government meetings have not been struck down. From what I’ve seen, a city council can have a prayer, as long as it’s not always a prayer to Jesus. They can do a non-sectarian prayer to some vague god, or they can have a Jesus prayer as long as they also have Jewish/Muslim/Hindu prayers. Also, I think I recall that with schools, you can’t have prayer, whether it’s at school announcements, or at a football game, or at a school board meeting. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/172 "2012-09-25T04:28:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The Establishment Clause isn’t about compulsion. It’s about things that government can’t do _itself_, rather than things it can’t tell you to do (or not do). A government sponsored prayer is a violation\* regardless of whether anyone is even asked to join in. > > \*Sometimes. It’s okay if Congress does it, because they always have, and they’d just have ignored SCOTUS if told not to. And this is precisely what makes it stupid. The first amendment covers both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It makes no sense to interpret the two concepts differently. Neither what was done here nor non-compulsive religious activity by the government should be illegal. Either there is a law, which is defined as a consequence for the actions, or there is not. BTW, I don’t see how Google can claim that the video doesn’t violate their terms of service. It puts certain other policy decisions in a different light–it seems they just enforce the rules based on their own agenda. They don’t want to be seen as bowing down to religious extremists. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864/173 "2012-09-25T13:07:09Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > RNATB, non-sectarian prayers at some government meetings have not been struck down. From what I’ve seen, a city council can have a prayer, as long as it’s not always a prayer to Jesus. They can do a non-sectarian prayer to some vague god, or they can have a Jesus prayer as long as they also have Jewish/Muslim/Hindu prayers. I know. I’m just explaining why “compulsion” isn’t a necessary element of an Establishment Clause violation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-how-is-this-not-a-violation-of-the-1st-amendment/634864.md?page=8)