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.
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?
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.
Suits me.
Repetitionville.
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.
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.
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”
Now, I truly am through with this discussion.
Yes.
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?
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”?
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.
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.
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.
I know. I’m just explaining why “compulsion” isn’t a necessary element of an Establishment Clause violation.