This discussion is about what is constitutional, not whether we should unratify something.
Yes. The idea that a Christmas tree is purely secular is also laughable.
It may be constitutional in that context, but not because it is not religious. It may be virtually secular at this point, but not yet. We haven’t completely squashed “the meaning of Christmas” out of it yet. Perhaps soon though. It could be a purely secular holiday that nobody even remembers or cares about the religious significance of, and that anyone of any religion feels fine celebrating, like Halloween.
I’m sure the Christians will all feel great when that happens!
How can there be any doubt that Holmes considered the “fire” scenario to
exemplify actionable illegal behavior? Any doubt at all? How could anyone
manage to pervert the unambiguous “protection of free speech *would not protect *
a man in falsely shouting fire” into something alien to its obvious meaning
and obvious intent?
Endangerment need not have been the specific basis for conviction, although
it is so clearly relevant I feel it must show up somewhere.
Also, maybe there is no reference to it because appeals judges have had the
good sense to throw defendants out of court ever since Holmes enunciated
“clear and present danger” I am aware of the fact that Brandenberg substituted
another standard in at least some cases involving political speech. However,
Justice Breyer apparently seems to think that “clear and present danger” may
still form a basis for legal decision-making, and I have a feeling he is not alone.
Here is more on the common law aspect of the matter:
Note that “bad tendency” was invoked in the 1907 landmark case for acts
involving speech alone, but not involving risk of physical injury. It should
therefore not be any stretch to consider it appropriate to invoke the principle
in more drastic circumstances where there IS risk of physical injury.
Now, you have not really answered this point I made:
You are in law school, right? Never mind finding hunting for legal citations,
how do you think the law should have been applied back in the time of the
first fake bomb threat in history, before there was anything on the books?
Just let the asshole not only go scott free, but also free to make more fake
threats until the legislature gets around to writing a new law?
Most state Constitutions have similar language in thier Constitution’s as mine. It seems clear how the word GOD is used here. In your opinion is this a violation of the Establishment Clause?
Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
“Year of our Lord,” for instance, is just a fragment. It’s clearly not religious any more, it’s just a leftover custom. “In God we Trust” and “under God” were both adopted in the 1950s though, and designed specifically to thumb our noses at the godless commies. It’s a little different context.
But my larger point is the depths to which religious people, or at least the courts, went to protect those. They said they aren’t religious at all. Yep, “God” is not religious. It demeaned religion, not secularism.
Say no. Period. That puts the ball in the cop’s court. If he’s just on a fishing expedition, then he’ll either have to back down and let you go on your way or get a warrant, which will probably involve arresting you. And if the arrest is not justified, his career is on the line.
Besides that, the odds of a cop being fired for conducting a warrantless search are somewhere down with those of Gilbert Gottfried becoming the WBO heavyweight champion.
As I said on page 1, if the police have probable cause to search your car, they do not need a warrant.
They enjoy qualified immunity, which is hard to overcome. Internal punishment is another matter, but PC is no strict definition to all, it is fact dependent on each officer.
Could be, but CONSENT abrogates any argument about PC when and if it arises.
I seem to remember a New Jersey SC some years ago, and if anyone lives in NJ they can verify it if they know, the police can not even ask to search your car, as this suggests a compliance? I may be wrong, but I seem to recall something like that?
I meant the history of how and why it came to be in our documents or building as well as it’s overall historical context.
And speaking of context, that matters too. A nice view of the history of law is one thing, slapping the Ten Commandments on your courtroom wall is another.
It is not plausible that Holmes would fail to mention the impotence of constable
and magistrate under conditions which so strongly cry out for the right of the public
to protection from physical injury due to malicious prevarication.
Here is Holmes’ complete quotation, including part I left out before:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely
shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
“The most stringent” would include doctrine that any act not specifically prohibited
is legal. However, I have in contradiction to that already mentioned endangerment
and bad tendency, and it now occurs to me to add disturbing the peace and disorderly
conduct as well. Exactly what Holmes had in mind I cannot say, but whatever he did
have in mind was consolidated under the overarching clear and present danger doctrine,
for which “falsely shouting fire” was exemplary.
So we can’t even charge him with disorderly conduct? Bullshit.
I would think “assault” or “aggravated assault” would work for a bomb threat or falsely shouting “fire”. Putting a person in reasonable fear of harm, or in the alternative, death or serious bodily harm. I agree with **colonial **here.
You agree with him about what? Unless somebody has actually been convicted of a crime for conduct approximating “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”, his contention is not true. We’re not talking about bomb threats; that’s something he brought up. Certainly there are existing common law and statutory provisions which might suffice.