Who are you talking to?
If it’s me I didn’t miss a thing, although my interlocutor did, with his unqualified statement.
I mean, it’s not exactly relevant to the thread…but whaa? He said it’s not and never has been a crime to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. You quoted the famous dictum from *Schenck *in response, which is irrelevant for several reasons, not the least of which is that the dictum refers to the *false *cry of fire.
I mean, OP concerns the limits of free speech, n’est-ce pas?
Then we get this:
getitrite So by the opions I have read here it is OK to stand in a theater and yell FIRE and if the theater operator has no problem with it, its acceptable behavior. Glad to have that cleared up THANK YA"LL
Ibn Warriq It’s actually not illegal to yell “fire” in a movie theatre and I’m not aware of any court ruling that it was.
And then, in answer to the ignorant post by **Ibn Warriq, I **answer with a contradicting Supreme Court citation.
Got it now, little Bubba?
With all due respect, I am not aware that Schenk ever cried “Fire”, falsely or otherwise, in a crowded theatre.
Would you be so kind as to point to the sentence written in the indicative in the decision?
Jesus Christ.
How can any post be so dense? So completely dense?
Schenk himself never cried “fire” that we know of.
Justice Holmes used the the scenario as an example
of speech which could not conceivably be protected.
That was, almost, my point. Thank you for confirming it.
Justice Holmes, however, did not enact legislation. Justice Holmes, his peers, and his successors, determined if enacted legislation or specific examples of enforcement of legislation, was (or is) constitutional.
When last I checked analogies were not legislation. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested.
Please review the decision, and the definitions of “dense” and “disagreeing with me”.
Dude, calm down.
I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Justice Holmes condemned “falsely” shouting foreign a theatre not merely "shouting fire in a theatre.
Anyway, I’m surprised so many people still refer to Holmes decision since Schenck was not shouting fire in a crowed theatre but encouraging people to not register for the draft.
I assume you don’t favor throwing people in jail merely for encouraging people not to register for the draft.
Holmes was not enacting legislation, or making an analogy either.
He using a commonsense observation to illustrate the legal principle
that some forms of speech, such as that endangering public safety,
is not protected.
In the specific case of the false theater “fire” certainly no legislation would
be necessary to secure conviction after Schenk, and I wonder if the centuries
of common law prior to Schenk left a hole which actually needed filling.
“Dense” in this context means stupid. That should cover it.
Yeah of course it is OK, but it is also OK to say no and assume there are no consequences. If there are consequences then we have a different argument.
People around here can make that challenging.
Yeah, right.
A distinction not present in your blanket, unqualified statement.
Addressed elsewhere.
Had I been alive during WW1 I might well have favored it. Knowing what I do now
I think it is unlikely that people such as Schenk pose a real threat to military manpower requirements.
If I were convinced that we needed several million soldiers in a hurry I could change my mind, though.
Is it a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the police ask to search your house without a warrant?
Same thing.
Quoted For Truth.
And that goes for the military brass as well, in this case and when Pastor “Dickhead” Jones was threatening to pull his stupid stunt. Having to protect Americans from other Americans must be frustrating for them.
Stop that. Just stop.
Read what you wrote. Read it. Don’t quibble.
Did you read it?
If you want to make a point, argue it coherently, don’t just assume everyone will collapse under your implication they are stupid.
You are wrong. You cited a decision inappropriately. Own it.
No need to change anything I said because it was entirely accurate,
including my characterization of your monumental density.
The INITIAL request is permissable, however, if there are repeated request not based on a valid reason, then it “may” violate the 4th.
Second, if probable cause exists to search a car, no warrant is needed anyway.
Really? I’ve not heard that before. Is that based on some Supreme Court dicta or something?
colonial, you’re treading right on the line instead of insulting another poster instead of commenting on his argument. Stop it.
Certainly did across the US, though.
It’s not a violation of the First Amendment because it wasn’t compulsory. The government can ask all manner of things, but the US Constitution limits what it can compel you to do.
Asking Youtube to remove the video is guilty of trying to shut the barn door after the animals are gone, though. If it has any value, it gives us the ability to say “Well, we did something!” I think it would have been better for us to stand on our principles, though.
Given that an ambassador has been killed already, the government could order the video to be removed citing national security. Not that I think that it’s a good idea or even legal, but if the Feds wanted to violate free speech it would not have been in the form of “If you don’t mind . . .”