Megachurches Still Packing Them In!

[Fueri]

Some dickweed pastor of a megachurch here in Illinois got busted emailing his staff a directive to conceal the fact that one of the pastors had been diagnosed positive for Covid-19.

no matter how you slice it, that's a dick move.

Unfortunately, an awful lot of these guys are nothing but money grubbing pigs that I very much doubt believe in God at all. Not all of them and the church is good for a lot of people, but some of these guys need to be rounded up and pushed out of their own helicopters....

 

[Faun]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

We'll see. It will go up the court system all the way to the Supreme Court probably.

Doubtful. He's trying now to establish his church as an essential business or service. But his county had already published a list of essential businesses and services and excluded attending church as such.

404 - Page Not Found

Official Website of Hillsborough County, Florida Government

www.hillsboroughcounty.org

It also states all others "must close."

If my business isn’t listed as “essential” do I have to close?​

Non-essential businesses that are unable to maintain the required physical distancing (6 feet) to keep employees and customers safe, must close. Businesses who have questions about how the order impacts them can call the Entrepreneur Collaborative Center at (813) 204-9267​

So he can still try to fight it by claiming it's "essential," and he could prevail on that; but if not, the First Amendment is not to protect him for putting public safety at risk.

 

[Faun]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

 

[Blues Man]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

 

[Faun]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

 

[Mac1958]

As I write this, Rush has spent the first 40 minutes of his show downplaying the virus.

And we wonder where this madness comes from.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yet you believe you have to worship in a church in order to receive it.

And you believe that you will be "gifted" entrance to heaven because of your faith. Right or wrong? Or is it you are afraid of being sentenced to hell?

Don't assume I don't know any religious people. I do. I have even read the bible and other religious books. I have read the writings of Aquinas and others

And yes i believe you worship for you not for others you are not the arbiter of their salvation and you can only work for your own so don't deny you worship for your own ends.

I teach poor kids music because I like to, it makes me feel good to do that for kids at least I admit that

I used to be a very devout christian when I was young. I got over it.

However I read the bible from cover to cover several times.

I know that just believing in jesus christ and going to church isn't a get into heaven free card.

I know that the Bible says St. Peter will be outside heaven and everyone has to justify their lives to get in. A person has to honestly spend their lives working for Jesus and what Jesus taught.

God is love, love your neighbor as you would god. Welcome the stranger into your town as you would a friend. Sell everything you own and give it to the poor and on and on.

The person you're replying to didn't read the bible or ignored the book of Matthew. Specifically Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'LORD, LORD' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father who is in heaven.

Just believing in god and jesus christ isn't a get into heaven free card.
[/QUOTE]

It also says in the Bible that "faith without works is dead" (James 2: 14-26). Blues Man is right - thinking you've got a ticket to heaven is arrogance.

The notion that the building matters or you must attend worship services isn't in the Bible. In fact. Jesus preached outdoors, and not in any building. There is a Commandment to "honour the Sabbath", and not to worship other gods, but nothing about attending church services.

Personally, I feel much closer to God when I'm alone in the woods than I do in the fanciest cathedral. A wise man once said to me that going to church should "nourish your faith". He was a great teacher who could take obscure passages of scripture and make them relevant to the problems we face today.

I'm not a strong believer in the mythology of religion. The whole Creation story sounds more like something someone made up to explain the existence of the world and the place of humans in it. Then there's the whole geographic and fossil record of the planet. It is the arrogance of man to consider that the world could not possibly have begun before they started recording it.

What I do believe in is the plan for living the Bible provides for humanity. The 10 Commandments, Jesus' reduction of the 10 to 2 simple instructions - Love God, and love one another, unreservedly, unconditionally, regardless of how they treat you.

All of the world's great religions have similar messages. But there is much cherry picking that has gone on throughout history. Guys like Tree believe in the "fire and brimston" vengence God of the Old Testament, ignoring the lessons of foregiveness and love in the New Testament. Prosperity Christians cherry pick the passages where Jesus talks about things that make you a better person, while ignoring the passages about the dangers of wealth and the love of money, and never ever mentioning the part where Jesus tells his followers to give their wealth away to the poor. Republican Christian really ignore that one.

You can find passages in the Bible to support incest, polygamy, homophobia, and even adultery. I stumbled upon a right wing Christian "family values" website that defines "adultery" as "sex between a man and a woman who is engaged or married to someone else". What is not adultery, in their eyes, is sex between a married man and an unattached woman. This gives so-called "Christian" men permission to screw around on their wives, so long as their mistress isn't married or engaged. Warren Jeffs used the Bible to justify his multiple underage wives, and turning young males out onto the road, to lessen competition for the women.

When preachers start "controlling" their flocks and telling them how to vote, the church has lost its way and is no longer acting in the best interests of its congregation. It has become a cult. This is what has become of the right wing Christian movement. When they start referring to Donald Trump as "God's Chosen One", you know these people have become a cult, and are not Christian at all.












































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































er777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777773ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Blues Man]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

 

[Blues Man]

As I write this, Rush has spent the first 40 minutes of his show downplaying the virus.

And we wonder where this madness comes from.

I wonder why you listen to talking head on the radio

 

[Mac1958]

As I write this, Rush has spent the first 40 minutes of his show downplaying the virus. And we wonder where this madness comes from.

I wonder why you listen to talking head on the radio

Because it explains what I see here and in society.

Talk radio says it, I see it here, I hear it in real life, I see Trump run with it.

Like clockwork.

 

[Blues Man]

As I write this, Rush has spent the first 40 minutes of his show downplaying the virus. And we wonder where this madness comes from.

I wonder why you listen to talking head on the radio

Because it explains what I see here and in society.

Talk radio says it, I see it here, I hear it in real life, I see Trump run with it.

Like clockwork.

Human stupidity explains it better I don't need to listen to some fat blowhard to know that

 

[SweetSue92]

Some dickweed pastor of a megachurch here in Illinois got busted emailing his staff a directive to conceal the fact that one of the pastors had been diagnosed positive for Covid-19.

no matter how you slice it, that's a dick move.

Unfortunately, an awful lot of these guys are nothing but money grubbing pigs that I very much doubt believe in God at all. Not all of them and the church is good for a lot of people, but some of these guys need to be rounded up and pushed out of their own helicopters....

Agree there, yep

 

[Faun]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.

That ruling was inline with U.S. v. Schneck in that the First Amendment still does not protect someone from using speech to incite something illegal, which is what the court upheld with Schneck. In Brandenburg, they ruled hate speech is protected as long as it's not intended to incite a crime.

That was demonstrated in the criminal conviction of Tom Metzger over a cross burning and civil case lost because he incited violence leading to the murder of a black.

 

[Blues Man]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.

That ruling was inline with U.S. v. Schneck in that the First Amendment still does not protect someone from using speech to incite something illegal, which is what the court upheld with Schneck. In Brandenburg, they ruled hate speech is protected as long as it's not intended to incite a crime.

That was demonstrated in the criminal conviction of Tom Metzger over a cross burning and civil case lost because he incited violence leading to the murder of a black.

Where did I say it did?

Stop making shit up.

Holmes used that stupid fire in a theater line referencing US v Schenck and it has been taken up and misused ever since

US v Schenck was overturned almost half a century ago because it was an infringement of the First amendment

 

[Faun]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.

That ruling was inline with U.S. v. Schneck in that the First Amendment still does not protect someone from using speech to incite something illegal, which is what the court upheld with Schneck. In Brandenburg, they ruled hate speech is protected as long as it's not intended to incite a crime.

That was demonstrated in the criminal conviction of Tom Metzger over a cross burning and civil case lost because he incited violence leading to the murder of a black.

Where did I say it did?

Stop making shit up.

Holmes used that stupid fire in a theater line referencing US v Schenck and it has been taken up and misused ever since

US v Schenck was overturned almost half a century ago because it was an infringement of the First amendment

Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio since that is a case that I've seen referenced as one overturning Schenck.

So which case are you talking about...?

 

[Blues Man]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.

That ruling was inline with U.S. v. Schneck in that the First Amendment still does not protect someone from using speech to incite something illegal, which is what the court upheld with Schneck. In Brandenburg, they ruled hate speech is protected as long as it's not intended to incite a crime.

That was demonstrated in the criminal conviction of Tom Metzger over a cross burning and civil case lost because he incited violence leading to the murder of a black.

Where did I say it did?

Stop making shit up.

Holmes used that stupid fire in a theater line referencing US v Schenck and it has been taken up and misused ever since

US v Schenck was overturned almost half a century ago because it was an infringement of the First amendment

Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio since that is a case that I've seen referenced as one overturning Schenck.

So which case are you talking about...?

All I ever said was Schenck was overturned because it was an infringement on the first amendment.

It's ironic that Holmes used a poor justification to restrict freedom of speech to support a bad law that actually did violate the first amendment

 

[Faun]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.

That ruling was inline with U.S. v. Schneck in that the First Amendment still does not protect someone from using speech to incite something illegal, which is what the court upheld with Schneck. In Brandenburg, they ruled hate speech is protected as long as it's not intended to incite a crime.

That was demonstrated in the criminal conviction of Tom Metzger over a cross burning and civil case lost because he incited violence leading to the murder of a black.

Where did I say it did?

Stop making shit up.

Holmes used that stupid fire in a theater line referencing US v Schenck and it has been taken up and misused ever since

US v Schenck was overturned almost half a century ago because it was an infringement of the First amendment

Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio since that is a case that I've seen referenced as one overturning Schenck.

So which case are you talking about...?

All I ever said was Schenck was overturned because it was an infringement on the first amendment.

It's ironic that Holmes used a poor justification to restrict freedom of speech to support a bad law that actually did violate the first amendment

Only a subsequent ruling can overturn it. What ruling overturned it?

 

[Blues Man]

In summary...
Christianity establishes a standard, values, decency, morality, normality, accountability, commonality...It is a catalyst to unity and togetherness...All things the filthy Left hates.
Hmm, why does the filthy Left reject Christianity? Because it stands in the way of their twisted agenda and the NEW America they seek.
Ain’t that right Bruce Daniels ?

Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.

And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!

It seems you have very little imagination for this sort of thing but let me clue you in: this is exactly how your freedom is taken, and mine. I mean not that anyone cares about that anymore, right? But still. YOU can't congregate in groups ever anymore, because my neighbor's sister's niece is immuno-compromised, and viruses get around, and it's DANGEROUS

Congrats for being part of the big problem: whipping us into a nation of window-peeping Gestapos. Hope you're proud

Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???

I really don't care if you feel my First Amendment Rights are selfish. For now, they are still my rights. I know you probably care little for them.

Oh? Then why is it illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater while knowing there is no fire? Do you think your First Amendment rights allow you to expose others to danger?

Technically it's not illegal.

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.

That's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." ~ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thing

But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.

You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.

The point is the actual speech is not illegal as it depends on the result of the act as to what the charges will be

I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.

the speech isn't the issue at all.

In the example of yelling fire, where it's known there is none, in a crowded theater, it is. If a panic ensues, it's because of that very speech. And such a person could face criminal charges for which they would fail to defend that speech as protected by the First Amendment. The Constitution does not provide people cover to put others safety at risk.

And the charges will never be for the speech itself.

And isn't it about time that fire in a theater crap is consigned to the scrap heap as it's as irrelevant in this day and age.

What do you think would happen if you walked into a sold out movie theater and yelled fire?

I'll tell you. You would be pelted with popcorn and overpriced candies and told to STFU

The charges are irrelevant in that whatever they are in reaction to inciting a stampede in a theater, such a person still does not have First Amendment protection of free speech to use speech to put others in danger. Just like it can be illegal to verbally threaten someone's life to their face. You can't do that and then defend yourself successfully by declaring you have a First Amendment right of free speech to tell someone you're going to kill them.

Well at least the threat example is correct because you can be charged with simply making a threat but you will never be charged for yelling fire

That's because there is no such charge as "yelling fire." But incite a stampede on false pretenses and you could be charged with a crime over which the First Amendment will not protect yelling "fire."

There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.

The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with yelling fire.

I'm not aware that anyone has ever done that. That would be the reason no one has been charged with a crime for doing so. Not because it's legal to incite a stampede in a crowded theater by falsely and intentionally yelling "fire!" Holmes' famous analogy was about how the First Amendment right to free speech does not allow people to use speech to commit crimes. It's a crime to incite a stampede in a crowded venue over false pretenses where people can get hurt. If someone were to do that, they could be charged with a crime and the First Amendment will not provide them protection.

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

Um, Schenck lost. It was a binding ruling. And the premise of the ruling was that Constitutional rights do not protect criminal activity. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, knowing there is no fire, to create a panic.

You know that as evidenced by your first reply to this...

​

​

Technically it's not illegal.

​

If someone shouted fire in a crowded theater and people told him to shut up and leave he would not be charged with any crime.​

​

... in which you removed creating a panic, a required element of the crime, from the situation. So who knows why you still persist?

You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

It isn't and it never was

and the ruling was overturned

Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.

That ruling was inline with U.S. v. Schneck in that the First Amendment still does not protect someone from using speech to incite something illegal, which is what the court upheld with Schneck. In Brandenburg, they ruled hate speech is protected as long as it's not intended to incite a crime.

That was demonstrated in the criminal conviction of Tom Metzger over a cross burning and civil case lost because he incited violence leading to the murder of a black.

Where did I say it did?

Stop making shit up.

Holmes used that stupid fire in a theater line referencing US v Schenck and it has been taken up and misused ever since

US v Schenck was overturned almost half a century ago because it was an infringement of the First amendment

Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio since that is a case that I've seen referenced as one overturning Schenck.

So which case are you talking about...?

All I ever said was Schenck was overturned because it was an infringement on the first amendment.

It's ironic that Holmes used a poor justification to restrict freedom of speech to support a bad law that actually did violate the first amendment

Only a subsequent ruling can overturn it. What ruling overturned it?

did you not read the article I linked to?

It's all there

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

 

[Papageorgio]

It also says in the Bible that "faith without works is dead" (James 2: 14-26). Blues Man is right - thinking you've got a ticket to heaven is arrogance.

The notion that the building matters or you must attend worship services isn't in the Bible. In fact. Jesus preached outdoors, and not in any building. There is a Commandment to "honour the Sabbath", and not to worship other gods, but nothing about attending church services.

Personally, I feel much closer to God when I'm alone in the woods than I do in the fanciest cathedral. A wise man once said to me that going to church should "nourish your faith". He was a great teacher who could take obscure passages of scripture and make them relevant to the problems we face today.

I'm not a strong believer in the mythology of religion. The whole Creation story sounds more like something someone made up to explain the existence of the world and the place of humans in it. Then there's the whole geographic and fossil record of the planet. It is the arrogance of man to consider that the world could not possibly have begun before they started recording it.

What I do believe in is the plan for living the Bible provides for humanity. The 10 Commandments, Jesus' reduction of the 10 to 2 simple instructions - Love God, and love one another, unreservedly, unconditionally, regardless of how they treat you.

All of the world's great religions have similar messages. But there is much cherry picking that has gone on throughout history. Guys like Tree believe in the "fire and brimston" vengence God of the Old Testament, ignoring the lessons of foregiveness and love in the New Testament. Prosperity Christians cherry pick the passages where Jesus talks about things that make you a better person, while ignoring the passages about the dangers of wealth and the love of money, and never ever mentioning the part where Jesus tells his followers to give their wealth away to the poor. Republican Christian really ignore that one.

You can find passages in the Bible to support incest, polygamy, homophobia, and even adultery. I stumbled upon a right wing Christian "family values" website that defines "adultery" as "sex between a man and a woman who is engaged or married to someone else". What is not adultery, in their eyes, is sex between a married man and an unattached woman. This gives so-called "Christian" men permission to screw around on their wives, so long as their mistress isn't married or engaged. Warren Jeffs used the Bible to justify his multiple underage wives, and turning young males out onto the road, to lessen competition for the women.

When preachers start "controlling" their flocks and telling them how to vote, the church has lost its way and is no longer acting in the best interests of its congregation. It has become a cult. This is what has become of the right wing Christian movement. When they start referring to Donald Trump as "God's Chosen One", you know these people have become a cult, and are not Christian at all.

I have to agree with you on many levels. I see justification for "Christians" to do wrong and it is okay because of their justification. Abortion to me is wrong, however killing a doctor that does surgical procedures is also wrong. To me if you want to have an abortion, then that is between you and God. I have enough faults to deal with than to worry about others.

I try to follow the two commands Love God with your whole soul, heart and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself. Ghandi once said that if everyone followed those two laws the wars would cease and mankind would live in peace. Ghandi also said if it wasn't for "Christians, I'd be a Christian. I tend to agree with him.

Lots of people call themselves Christians, very few live it.

As far as megachurches or any church for that matter, holding services during this time is wrong and shows little love to your neighbor.

 

[charwin95]

These people who go to these mega-churches are being incredibly selfish. Whatever they contract while there they will carry with them to infect others.

Of course. But they believe it's not that dangerous.

So what are we supposed to say to someone like that?

I do not know. I've said, years before the coronavirus showed up, that these guys have to have their stage so that they can be videoed waving their arms in the air for "God" and can't just pray. I don't know what to think. In my own life, I've been to Ephesus, the Great Mosque of Istanbul, St. Peter's, the catacombs, Canterbury, Westminster, the National Cathedral, but these people's antics have caused me to rethink what faith is all about. Is it a farce? I am in the midst of serious questioning.

You don't know. You should have just left it at that.

Honestly you probably don't even believe in God. Certainly not in Jesus Christ. So just leave it at "I don't know"

You do not know me. You do not know what thoughts occur to me. Judging from your comments on USMB, you do not believe in Jesus Christ. Go read the Sermon on the Mount.

This is very simple: I am a Christian. I believe before the universe began, there was the Trinity, the God, Three in One, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

If you believe that and a few other things, you too are a Christian. If you don't, you aren't. If you hedge, you're not a Christian but don't want to admit it, so you can argue and accuse me.

Sorry kid. This does not include a belief in somebody like frankie graham or falwell, neither of whom represent the Christian faith. Again. Read the Sermon on the Mount.

They should arrest these dude for endangering people’s lives just like the pastor in Florida.