Here is a question I posted on another forum, and wonder if
“Lincoln-Kennedy Conspiracy theorists” are going to jump on this one also:
do you believe it is just "coincidence" that
* Oliver Wendell HOLMES Jr. is famous for saying not to SHOUT FIRE in a crowded theatre (with regard to limits on First Amendment rights)
* While James HOLMES has just become famous for OPENING FIRE in a crowded theatre (reopening debates on Second Amendment rights)
====================================================
RE: Former graduate student James Holmes, 24, is accused of opening fire in a theater in a Denver suburb. The shooting also injured 58 people.
=================================================
Do you believe in divine order and that no coincidences just randomly occur,
or do you believe it is just "coincidence" that
* Oliver Wendell HOLMES Jr. is famous for saying not to SHOUT FIRE in a crowded theatre (with regard to limits on First Amendment rights)
* While James HOLMES has just become famous for OPENING FIRE in a crowded theatre (reopening debates on Second Amendment rights)
Random coincidence, or do you believe God is trying to point out something?
That in both cases you can't just have unbridled freedom without check,
but that the laws such as 1st and 2nd Amendment still need to be
exercised or interpreted WITHIN the spirit of Constitutional laws or contract?
=========================
"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a popular metaphor and frequent paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The paraphrasing does not generally include the fact that falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from that which is truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, as they held distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft to be, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
“Lincoln-Kennedy Conspiracy theorists” are going to jump on this one also:
do you believe it is just "coincidence" that
* Oliver Wendell HOLMES Jr. is famous for saying not to SHOUT FIRE in a crowded theatre (with regard to limits on First Amendment rights)
* While James HOLMES has just become famous for OPENING FIRE in a crowded theatre (reopening debates on Second Amendment rights)
====================================================
RE: Former graduate student James Holmes, 24, is accused of opening fire in a theater in a Denver suburb. The shooting also injured 58 people.
=================================================
Do you believe in divine order and that no coincidences just randomly occur,
or do you believe it is just "coincidence" that
* Oliver Wendell HOLMES Jr. is famous for saying not to SHOUT FIRE in a crowded theatre (with regard to limits on First Amendment rights)
* While James HOLMES has just become famous for OPENING FIRE in a crowded theatre (reopening debates on Second Amendment rights)
Random coincidence, or do you believe God is trying to point out something?
That in both cases you can't just have unbridled freedom without check,
but that the laws such as 1st and 2nd Amendment still need to be
exercised or interpreted WITHIN the spirit of Constitutional laws or contract?
=========================
"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a popular metaphor and frequent paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The paraphrasing does not generally include the fact that falsely shouting fire to highlight that speech which is merely dangerous and false which can be distinguished from that which is truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, as they held distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft to be, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Last edited: