Megachurches Still Packing Them In!

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
9,378
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?
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,077
Reaction score
1,204
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
Once again saying that is not illegal and you will not be charged for saying it. you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic.

But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
9,378
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?
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
Once again saying that is not illegal and you will not be charged for saying it. you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic.

But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?
"you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic."

* poof *

There goes your argument. If you can be charged with a crime, you don't have First Amendment protection to cause a panic with speech.

"But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?"

What does that have to do with leveraging freedom of speech to put people in harm's way on false pretenses?
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,077
Reaction score
1,204
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
Once again saying that is not illegal and you will not be charged for saying it. you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic.

But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?
"you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic."

* poof *

There goes your argument. If you can be charged with a crime, you don't have First Amendment protection to cause a panic with speech.

"But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?"

What does that have to do with leveraging freedom of speech to put people in harm's way on false pretenses?
No my argument is and always has been that the act of yelling fire or whatever is not illegal and it isn't now nor has it ever been.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
9,378
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?
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
Once again saying that is not illegal and you will not be charged for saying it. you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic.

But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?
"you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic."

* poof *

There goes your argument. If you can be charged with a crime, you don't have First Amendment protection to cause a panic with speech.

"But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?"

What does that have to do with leveraging freedom of speech to put people in harm's way on false pretenses?
No my argument is and always has been that the act of yelling fire or whatever is not illegal and it isn't now nor has it ever been.
Then you're arguing with yourself then because you just said someone who does that, resulting in deaths, will be charged with a crime.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: xyz

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
17,014
Reaction score
2,404
Points
290
You defend this stupid son of a bitch after the TRUMP people admitted that if we do everything right (THIS IS NOT THAT) hundreds of thousands will die and if we don't (this is THAT) it could run into the millions?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
9,378
Points
2,060
You defend this stupid son of a bitch after the TRUMP people admitted that if we do everything right (THIS IS NOT THAT) hundreds of thousands will die and if we don't (this is THAT) it could run into the millions?
Impeached Trump is a fucking loser. Just 3 weeks ago, instead of warning Americans about the danger we faced with COVID-19, he tweeted, "So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!"
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
9,378
Points
2,060
Think about that....
Now he's finally taking COVID-19 seriously and estimates ¼ million people will die this year in the U.S..
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
7,077
Reaction score
1,204
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
Once again saying that is not illegal and you will not be charged for saying it. you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic.

But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?
"you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic."

* poof *

There goes your argument. If you can be charged with a crime, you don't have First Amendment protection to cause a panic with speech.

"But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?"

What does that have to do with leveraging freedom of speech to put people in harm's way on false pretenses?
No my argument is and always has been that the act of yelling fire or whatever is not illegal and it isn't now nor has it ever been.
Then you're arguing with yourself then because you just said someone who does that, resulting in deaths, will be charged with a crime.
But the speech will not b e the crime you idiot
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
9,378
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?
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
You don't know that and that wasn't my premise. But since you don't want to admit the obvious, let's say you scream, "shooter with a gun!" knowing there isn't one and a hundred people die in an ensuing stampede. That's still your First Amendment right, correct? You can't be held legally liable according to you.
Once again saying that is not illegal and you will not be charged for saying it. you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic.

But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?
"you will be charged with endangerment, inciting or some other such thing IF what you say causes a panic."

* poof *

There goes your argument. If you can be charged with a crime, you don't have First Amendment protection to cause a panic with speech.

"But then again we see Department stores causing stampedes where people have been trampled to death so but they never get charged for their advertisements that caused the stampede do they?"

What does that have to do with leveraging freedom of speech to put people in harm's way on false pretenses?
No my argument is and always has been that the act of yelling fire or whatever is not illegal and it isn't now nor has it ever been.
Then you're arguing with yourself then because you just said someone who does that, resulting in deaths, will be charged with a crime.
But the speech will not b e the crime you idiot
Correct, there is no statute called "yelling fire."

But as you pointed out, if you do that maliciously and it leads to a panic in which people are killed, they will be charged with a crime and the First Amendment won't protect them.
 

xyz

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
6,148
Reaction score
644
Points
195
Think about that....
Now he's finally taking COVID-19 seriously and estimates ¼ million people will die this year in the U.S..
I think someone from his administration said that, Trump said that if it was 100,000 it would be a success. Which is a higher figure than the American toll in WWI or Vietnam.

The problem is that he is always splitting his time in trying to do something about the pandemic and attacking his political rivals and the press. He has no problem killing ten of thousands if something Obama did is rescinded, which gives him great pleasure.
 

Grace Is Stoked

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
412
Reaction score
143
Points
180
Location
Oregon
I won't criticize someone who wants to go to their church in order to worship Christ. Everybody has their own personal relationship with God and so for these people being able to go to their church with their fellow worshipers is something that is bigger than a virus to them. For me, I love my church, I work at my church, but as much as I love it I also do not need the physical building in order to worship. I do miss the people, I miss the atmosphere, I miss the joy that comes with being there, but God is inside of me regardless of where I am and I, and other Christians, can share Jesus in many other ways. If the Holy Spirit is inside of you and you give yourself to Him then you have your church. Acts 7:48 helps provide some reassurance on this topic too in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top