Megachurches Still Packing Them In!

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,715
Reaction score
9,318
Points
2,060
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.

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. :eusa_doh:

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).
LOLOL

So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio :eusa_doh:

Why did you lie then and ask where you said you did as though you didn't??

Blues Man: and the ruling was overturned
Faun: Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck.
Blues Man: Where did I say it did? Stop making shit up.
Faun: Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
[...]​
Blues Man: In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck

Your bullshit aside, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck. U.S. v. Schenck upheld it is illegal to use speech to incite others to commit a Crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled the First Amendment protects incendiary hate speech, like that by Brandenburg, unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," like that which led to Schenck's conviction.[/INDENT]
 

charwin95

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
17,199
Reaction score
1,949
Points
290
Location
Palm S.Ca/Key Byscayne,Fl
Being a right-winger has to be a measurable risk factor in dying of this disease.
Incredible but true.
I went to our small town hardware store the other day. The place has become sort of a hangout for conservatives since things started shutting down. There were about a dozen men standing right inside the front door close talking and shaking hands. I know most of them and never thought of them as idiots before but that open display of ignorance was alarming to me. Our local hospital has only 25 beds, those fools could fill up half of them.
They've been told this is a political plot and they believe it, down to their bones.

This has been a perfect example of how an ideology can literally be dangerous.
At some point they will question why they are being asked to parrot a contradictory message every week.
Obviously they get this stuff from talk radio and the internet.

I wonder if any of those people feel the slightest bit of guilt.

I'm guessing not.
Who is the "they" you're talking about? fwiw, I do not believe anyone orchestrated the virus. I certainly believe, now that it's here "never let a crisis go to waste" is in full effect though. Read what's all around you. Leftists do not want these cures to work, not really, or at least not right away.
"Leftists do not want these cures to work, not really, or at least not right away." Do you think that "leftists" don't have loved ones? They don't have grandparents, parents, siblings, children? Are "leftists" some kind of inhuman alien race of reptiles?
1. I have read many Leftists on this very forum wish this virus on their enemies--oh, the virus, followed by death and

2. Every time a vaccine or cure is mentioned, the Leftists protest. No no the quarantine must go on, we NEED it
1. You proved yourself a selfish moron.

2. Like WHO? Prove it. Why would or should any leftist protest any cure or vaccine? Are you saying we don’t have relatives and friends? Americans are getting sick and dying numbers are going up and you are so stuck with your religion.



I’m a catholic i don’t go to church every Sunday but I can pray at home or anywhere. I prefer it that way so god can concentrate only on me instead with the group of 100s. That just me.
.

.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
1,100
Points
195
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.

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. :eusa_doh:

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).
LOLOL

So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio :eusa_doh:

Why did you lie then and ask where you said you did as though you didn't??

Blues Man: and the ruling was overturned
Faun: Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck.
Blues Man: Where did I say it did? Stop making shit up.
Faun: Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
[...]​
Blues Man: In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck

Your bullshit aside, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck. U.S. v. Schenck upheld it is illegal to use speech to incite others to commit a Crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled the First Amendment protects incendiary hate speech, like that by Brandenburg, unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," like that which led to Schenck's conviction.[/INDENT]
It's irrelevant

I wasn't talking about any case just that Schenck was overturned because it was a violation of the first amendment

and the whole fire in a theater thing is still bullshit
 

charwin95

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
17,199
Reaction score
1,949
Points
290
Location
Palm S.Ca/Key Byscayne,Fl
Apparently, SOME people aren't concerned about covid-19 because they have GOD on their side. Let's check back with them in a month or so, shall we? We'll see how that worked out by then. But if some of them die, they're all Christians so they'll be up in heaven, right? I guess.

The video doesn't really show anything. People could be practicing social distancing on busses and in the sanctuary, just the same as reporters we see everyday attending press briefings.

How exactly is exposer at a church any different then exposer at the grocery, or gas station or countless other places people are going?
Groceries people make constant movements and distancing. Gas station from one pump to next is more than 6 feet.

Churches you sit or stand next to a person for an hour at least that could be a carrier without any symptoms. Any old person sitting next to that person is vulnerable.



But don’t let religion stop the stupidity. God will save you when they insert the tubings to your tracheostomy for the ventilators. From there you better pray. Hard.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,715
Reaction score
9,318
Points
2,060
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.

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. :eusa_doh:

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).
LOLOL

So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio :eusa_doh:

Why did you lie then and ask where you said you did as though you didn't??

Blues Man: and the ruling was overturned
Faun: Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck.
Blues Man: Where did I say it did? Stop making shit up.
Faun: Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
[...]​
Blues Man: In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck

Your bullshit aside, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck. U.S. v. Schenck upheld it is illegal to use speech to incite others to commit a Crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled the First Amendment protects incendiary hate speech, like that by Brandenburg, unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," like that which led to Schenck's conviction.[/INDENT]
It's irrelevant

I wasn't talking about any case just that Schenck was overturned because it was a violation of the first amendment

and the whole fire in a theater thing is still bullshit
Now you're just talking out of your ass. You specifically referenced Brandenburg v. Ohio; which you have no choice but to do since you're not the arbitrator of what constitutes free speech. And Brandenburg v. Ohio maintains it's still illegal to incite "imminent lawless action." The impact of that on the yelling fire analogy means simply feigning fire is protected free speech, unless it produces "imminent lawless action," such as causing a stampede leading to injuries or deaths.
 

Hellokitty

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,741
Reaction score
830
Points
280
Apparently, SOME people aren't concerned about covid-19 because they have GOD on their side. Let's check back with them in a month or so, shall we? We'll see how that worked out by then. But if some of them die, they're all Christians so they'll be up in heaven, right? I guess.

The video doesn't really show anything. People could be practicing social distancing on busses and in the sanctuary, just the same as reporters we see everyday attending press briefings.

How exactly is exposer at a church any different then exposer at the grocery, or gas station or countless other places people are going?
Groceries people make constant movements and distancing. Gas station from one pump to next is more than 6 feet.

Churches you sit or stand next to a person for an hour at least that could be a carrier without any symptoms. Any old person sitting next to that person is vulnerable.



But don’t let religion stop the stupidity. God will save you when they insert the tubings to your tracheostomy for the ventilators. From there you better pray. Hard.
To start the overwhelming majority of churches especially those located in hot spots have stopped services, so let's not take cheep shots at religion as a whole.

As for groceries, um people are touching things all through out the store, they take a box off the shelf look at it and put it back, or they move a box to get the one behind it...Workers who could infected are handling the items putting in sticking the shelves. I was at the store the other day and did notice the cashier wearing gloves but I'm not sure about the person bagging, I'll have to pay attention next time and see if they are also wearing gloves.
 
OP
Bruce Daniels

Bruce Daniels

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
556
Points
175
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.
I care more about the people who are going to die because you dumb-ass bible thumpers are more interested in praising your Sky Fairy than actually protecting lives.
Protect yourself and the stupid people can't hurt you
For what, protect yourself for what? A few more spins on this floating rock in space?

This is what I mean here...doomed to destruction
Damn right. I want to stay on this ride as long as possible.
And that right there, exactly, is the problem in 21st century America. Because we have become a post-Christian society, we have forgotten what freedom means to us. So we will ALL lose our freedom, we have lost "herd immunity freedom". Sure, we will be clinging to life after this. But what life?

We have forgotten that sometimes, life is not worth living. But whatever. Life can also be a very, very hard teacher.
Live free or die!
Yes indeed. Or the cry of my patriot forefathers: "Give me liberty or give me death!"

But not now. The cry of the 21st century American: "Big Daddy Govco, keep me safe! There's a virus out there and it's scaaaaarrrrry and I don't know what to do if you don't protect meeeeee"

Really shameful when you think about it
I don't expect the government to ever keep me safe.

I protect myself if you don't want to do that that's your problem
Sure you expect the government to keep you safe, don't you? We have protected religious freedom in the Constitution but you have a problem with it. What do you propose to do about it?
I don't care what your religion is but don't assume that other people don't think their life is worth living just because you think yours isn't

If you care so little for your own health and the people of your church care so little for theirs that's your problem so go to church and get everyone there sick IDGAF because I have never stepped foot in a church and don't plan to any time in my life

But don't tell me you can't practice your religion from home or in small groups because that is simply untrue
These people do not understand how disease is spread. They also do not understand that they can pray anywhere, even in their homes. The Creator/Supreme Being can hear you in your living room, your bedroom, your bathroom 24/7.
It takes a crowd to induce religious ecstasy. A neurological state indistinguishable from orgasm. Getting "the spirit" releases a powerful endorphin rush that can be terribly addictive. They have a deep physical need to get their spiritual rocks off.
You must have gone to the Roly-Poly church where they "Get the Spirit" and start speaking gibberish.
I went when I was around 12 with my friend, we ran home as fast as we could when they started trying to drown a kid.
We went around to all the churches when I was a kid.
Yes, that's the kind of churches that refuse to close. I have actually witnessed snake handling and speaking in tongues during my childhood.
See I don't know about that. My church "meets" only virtually now. But if churches wanted to meet, I would understand it. Throughout the history of Christendom, churches have met underground for all sorts of reasons even under horrible circumstances, even upon pain of death.

I draw the line of course if someone has an active infection or even if someone in their house does.
And if someone is infected, but has mild symptoms or NO symptoms, what then?
Well now, if someone is infected but has no symptoms how would they even know? But then how does the guy in the hardware store or the liquor store know either?
They DON'T, moron. But they can give it to someone else! Get it?? That's the problem. Why can't you fucking idiots even understand that?
[/Q
Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.
Yes, you are free to be as stupid as possible. This has nothing to do with "freedom of religion", and if you had half a brain, you'd know that. Hopefully there were a LOT of Trump voters in church yesterday.
Thank you for weighing in from Canada
Are the Canadian mega churches packing them in too, or is this just something exceptional with America.
Are there many--or any--actual Christians left in Canada? Not many, I would imagine. At all.
More than there are in the USA. You've demonstrated in spades you're not a Christian, given your attitude towards "loving one another as I have loved you", and "Do unto others".

Our Constitution requires that we "help one another" so that most Christian of principles is enshrined in our Constitution. It's not "every man for himself and screw you" that I see from "prosperity Christians" like Joel Osteen who locked his neighbours out of his church during the flooding in Houston,.
What are the two greatest Commandments of Jesus? In order. Cite them in order
Who the fuck do you think you are, that you can tell me what to do? The arrogance and condescension of those who claim morally superiority on the grounds of their right wing Christianity, is laughable.
Your arrogance and condescension and claim to moral superiority being Canadian is no different than hers. She is claiming it on a religious level, your claim is on a country level.
You're projecting that on me. A LOT of that goes on with Christianity. A LOT.
I just read your posts, defending a megachurch and them gathering together is wrong. The church is failing to protect their flock. Churches across America are using other methods to teach their flock that doesn’t jeopardize the health of thousands. They are not showing love of neighbor. It seems money is motivating the leader of the church, not love. In the eyes of God, the church could have bloodguilt on their hands.
I'm not religious but I would think that god would frown on that kind of reckless selfishness
Women going out to the drug stores to get hair color; people going to to the liquor stores in droves; pot dispenseries, and NOT just for "medicinal use". You could name a dozen other frivolous reasons people go out, but worship is the one everyone is laser focused on--oh, and Christian worship, of course.

I know why. Do you?
I think it's because of the "being in a crowd" issue
No, the hatred for Christians is, pardon the pun--particularly virulent. The virus came from CHINA, yet the NYT blamed evangelical Christians for it.

That's fine. All Christians know this: Jesus is coming back, and the time is soon. VERY soon.

What do you think this is, for pity's sake? An old fashioned Old Testament plague. Often used to get attention.

Now comes some old fashioned persecution, it looks like.

Again. The time is short. Ask any honest Christian, not "social" Christian. We know.
Ho hum. Christians have been saying that The Second Coming is imminent for 2,000 years. I've already been dead (for a minute and a half from a heart attack), and I didn't see Jesus there.
 
OP
Bruce Daniels

Bruce Daniels

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
1,484
Reaction score
556
Points
175
There's a reason why the church calls its parishioners a flock
Compared to Leftists, trust me, we are the free thinkers of our day.
I don't think you know many evangelical Christians, do you? Really.

In my church we have a couple who are bikers. They give testimony at a pool hall every weekend. We have couples who are blue collar and couples who are millionaires.

We have a guy who runs a Crisis Pg Center.

We have a woman who is such a voracious reader that she is reading her way through "The Thousand Classics You Must Read Before you Die". Like Plato, Voltaire, Tolstoy. The entire list.

Our pastor and his wife read the Old Testament...in Hebrew.

So, yeah. I find MUCH more diversity in my church, of thought, education and interest, than I ever have among Leftists. Truth.
How many leftists do you know? One?
 

charwin95

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
17,199
Reaction score
1,949
Points
290
Location
Palm S.Ca/Key Byscayne,Fl
Apparently, SOME people aren't concerned about covid-19 because they have GOD on their side. Let's check back with them in a month or so, shall we? We'll see how that worked out by then. But if some of them die, they're all Christians so they'll be up in heaven, right? I guess.

The video doesn't really show anything. People could be practicing social distancing on busses and in the sanctuary, just the same as reporters we see everyday attending press briefings.

How exactly is exposer at a church any different then exposer at the grocery, or gas station or countless other places people are going?
Groceries people make constant movements and distancing. Gas station from one pump to next is more than 6 feet.

Churches you sit or stand next to a person for an hour at least that could be a carrier without any symptoms. Any old person sitting next to that person is vulnerable.



But don’t let religion stop the stupidity. God will save you when they insert the tubings to your tracheostomy for the ventilators. From there you better pray. Hard.
To start the overwhelming majority of churches especially those located in hot spots have stopped services, so let's not take cheep shots at religion as a whole.

As for groceries, um people are touching things all through out the store, they take a box off the shelf look at it and put it back, or they move a box to get the one behind it...Workers who could infected are handling the items putting in sticking the shelves. I was at the store the other day and did notice the cashier wearing gloves but I'm not sure about the person bagging, I'll have to pay attention next time and see if they are also wearing gloves.
True compared to a person standing next to you in an hour.
 

charwin95

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
17,199
Reaction score
1,949
Points
290
Location
Palm S.Ca/Key Byscayne,Fl
Being a right-winger has to be a measurable risk factor in dying of this disease.
Incredible but true.
I went to our small town hardware store the other day. The place has become sort of a hangout for conservatives since things started shutting down. There were about a dozen men standing right inside the front door close talking and shaking hands. I know most of them and never thought of them as idiots before but that open display of ignorance was alarming to me. Our local hospital has only 25 beds, those fools could fill up half of them.
They've been told this is a political plot and they believe it, down to their bones.

This has been a perfect example of how an ideology can literally be dangerous.
At some point they will question why they are being asked to parrot a contradictory message every week.
Obviously they get this stuff from talk radio and the internet.

I wonder if any of those people feel the slightest bit of guilt.

I'm guessing not.
Who is the "they" you're talking about? fwiw, I do not believe anyone orchestrated the virus. I certainly believe, now that it's here "never let a crisis go to waste" is in full effect though. Read what's all around you. Leftists do not want these cures to work, not really, or at least not right away.
"Leftists do not want these cures to work, not really, or at least not right away." Do you think that "leftists" don't have loved ones? They don't have grandparents, parents, siblings, children? Are "leftists" some kind of inhuman alien race of reptiles?
1. I have read many Leftists on this very forum wish this virus on their enemies--oh, the virus, followed by death and

2. Every time a vaccine or cure is mentioned, the Leftists protest. No no the quarantine must go on, we NEED it
1. You proved yourself a selfish moron.

2. Like WHO? Prove it. Why would or should any leftist protest any cure or vaccine? Are you saying we don’t have relatives and friends? Americans are getting sick and dying numbers are going up and you are so stuck with your religion.



I’m a catholic i don’t go to church every Sunday but I can pray at home or anywhere. I prefer it that way so god can concentrate only on me instead with the group of 100s. That just me.
.

.
Sweet sue....... Is this mean you are lying?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
17,194
Reaction score
3,164
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Apparently, SOME people aren't concerned about covid-19 because they have GOD on their side. Let's check back with them in a month or so, shall we? We'll see how that worked out by then. But if some of them die, they're all Christians so they'll be up in heaven, right? I guess.
Well we don't know if they are all Christian. Being a in a church, doesn't make you Christian, anymore than being in a garage makes you a Corvette.

But generally speaking, yes. I know for my part that if I die, I'll go to heaven. So I'm not worried about death. Nor is my family, parents, relatives and so on.

That said... being assured of going to Heaven, doesn't mean you should be stupid, and jump off cliffs because if I die Heaven, and if not I live.

This is not smart, and I fully believe that Church should follow the guidelines set out.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,062
Reaction score
10,828
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
And by the way I worship for God first. It's very hard to imagine, even for a lot of I would say nominal Christians. Not a me-centered worldview, but a God-centered worldview. This is not to say I'm not selfish because I am right down to my baby toenail, absolutely, just like the rest of us. Selfish. It's my default position. BUT I KNOW that none of this is about me. Didn't start with me, didn't end with me, I didn't create my life and I surely won't determine its eternal destiny. That is not a think it is a know.
The problem is that your God is often a reflection of your bigotries. God never condemns your awful behavior, you always find a way to rationalize them, like your support of throwing Mexican kids into concentration camps, just like Jesus would do.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
121,062
Reaction score
10,828
Points
2,055
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
You are hoping for this aren’t you. Seems like you are taking great joy in people in coffins.
Joy, no. Vindication, yes. We told you clowns for years that Trump was unfit for office, and you guys all snickered and said, "I love how he owns the libs!!!"

Well, now we have something Trump TRULY owns, the half-ass response to this crisis.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
1,100
Points
195
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.

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. :eusa_doh:

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).
LOLOL

So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio :eusa_doh:

Why did you lie then and ask where you said you did as though you didn't??

Blues Man: and the ruling was overturned
Faun: Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck.
Blues Man: Where did I say it did? Stop making shit up.
Faun: Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
[...]​
Blues Man: In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck

Your bullshit aside, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck. U.S. v. Schenck upheld it is illegal to use speech to incite others to commit a Crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled the First Amendment protects incendiary hate speech, like that by Brandenburg, unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," like that which led to Schenck's conviction.[/INDENT]
It's irrelevant

I wasn't talking about any case just that Schenck was overturned because it was a violation of the first amendment

and the whole fire in a theater thing is still bullshit
Now you're just talking out of your ass. You specifically referenced Brandenburg v. Ohio; which you have no choice but to do since you're not the arbitrator of what constitutes free speech. And Brandenburg v. Ohio maintains it's still illegal to incite "imminent lawless action." The impact of that on the yelling fire analogy means simply feigning fire is protected free speech, unless it produces "imminent lawless action," such as causing a stampede leading to injuries or deaths.
I referenced an article in the Atlantic Monthly

WHat does it matter what case overturned Schenck for the purposes of this discussion?

Oh yeah it doesn't matter at all because you original premise that it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater was wrong
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,715
Reaction score
9,318
Points
2,060
And by the way I worship for God first. It's very hard to imagine, even for a lot of I would say nominal Christians. Not a me-centered worldview, but a God-centered worldview. This is not to say I'm not selfish because I am right down to my baby toenail, absolutely, just like the rest of us. Selfish. It's my default position. BUT I KNOW that none of this is about me. Didn't start with me, didn't end with me, I didn't create my life and I surely won't determine its eternal destiny. That is not a think it is a know.
The problem is that your God is often a reflection of your bigotries. God never condemns your awful behavior, you always find a way to rationalize them, like your support of throwing Mexican kids into concentration camps, just like Jesus would do.
It's ok, we're safe now...

 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,715
Reaction score
9,318
Points
2,060
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.

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. :eusa_doh:

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).
LOLOL

So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio :eusa_doh:

Why did you lie then and ask where you said you did as though you didn't??

Blues Man: and the ruling was overturned
Faun: Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck.
Blues Man: Where did I say it did? Stop making shit up.
Faun: Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
[...]​
Blues Man: In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck

Your bullshit aside, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck. U.S. v. Schenck upheld it is illegal to use speech to incite others to commit a Crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled the First Amendment protects incendiary hate speech, like that by Brandenburg, unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," like that which led to Schenck's conviction.[/INDENT]
It's irrelevant

I wasn't talking about any case just that Schenck was overturned because it was a violation of the first amendment

and the whole fire in a theater thing is still bullshit
Now you're just talking out of your ass. You specifically referenced Brandenburg v. Ohio; which you have no choice but to do since you're not the arbitrator of what constitutes free speech. And Brandenburg v. Ohio maintains it's still illegal to incite "imminent lawless action." The impact of that on the yelling fire analogy means simply feigning fire is protected free speech, unless it produces "imminent lawless action," such as causing a stampede leading to injuries or deaths.
I referenced an article in the Atlantic Monthly

WHat does it matter what case overturned Schenck for the purposes of this discussion?

Oh yeah it doesn't matter at all because you original premise that it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater was wrong
So you think you can walk into a crowded theater and knowing there's no fire, just to cause a panic, yell "fire!" A hundred people die is an ensuing stampede -- and you can't be held legally liable because you think the First Amendment protects that speech?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
1,100
Points
195
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.

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. :eusa_doh:

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).
LOLOL

So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio :eusa_doh:

Why did you lie then and ask where you said you did as though you didn't??

Blues Man: and the ruling was overturned
Faun: Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck.
Blues Man: Where did I say it did? Stop making shit up.
Faun: Sorry, my bad. I assumed you were talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
[...]​
Blues Man: In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck

Your bullshit aside, Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schenck. U.S. v. Schenck upheld it is illegal to use speech to incite others to commit a Crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio ruled the First Amendment protects incendiary hate speech, like that by Brandenburg, unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," like that which led to Schenck's conviction.[/INDENT]
It's irrelevant

I wasn't talking about any case just that Schenck was overturned because it was a violation of the first amendment

and the whole fire in a theater thing is still bullshit
Now you're just talking out of your ass. You specifically referenced Brandenburg v. Ohio; which you have no choice but to do since you're not the arbitrator of what constitutes free speech. And Brandenburg v. Ohio maintains it's still illegal to incite "imminent lawless action." The impact of that on the yelling fire analogy means simply feigning fire is protected free speech, unless it produces "imminent lawless action," such as causing a stampede leading to injuries or deaths.
I referenced an article in the Atlantic Monthly

WHat does it matter what case overturned Schenck for the purposes of this discussion?

Oh yeah it doesn't matter at all because you original premise that it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater was wrong
So you think you can walk into a crowded theater and knowing there's no fire, just to cause a panic, yell "fire!" A hundred people die is an ensuing stampede -- and you can't be held legally liable because you think the First Amendment protects that speech?
FYI it won't cause a panic in this day and age.

For one every public building has fire alarms and sprinkler systems so no one is going to listen to some idiot yelling fire during a movie but they will trhow popcorn soda and candy at the idiot who is yelling fire and tell him to shut the fuck up

So not only is that yelling fire in a theater ting not illegal , it does not apply at all anymore in our society
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top