Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 125,906
- 90,844
- 3,635
LOLOLdid you not read the article I linked to?Only a subsequent ruling can overturn it. What ruling overturned it?All I ever said was Schenck was overturned because it was an infringement on 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.Where did I say it did?Brandenburg v. Ohio did not overturn U.S. v. Schneck.You said it was illegal to yell fire in a crowded theaterUm, 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.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.The first amendment does not have to protect yelling fire because no has or ever will be charged with 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."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 fireThe 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.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.the speech isn't the issue at all.I've already acknowledged a crime has to be committed in order for the First Amendment to not protect the speech.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 ?You can be charged with inciting or endangerment for many reasons.But they would be charged. Their First Amendment rights do not protect them from putting others in danger.And they still would not be charged for yelling fire but rather for something like inciting or endangerment or some such thingThat's true. That action has to create a panic to be illegal.Technically it's not illegal.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?Ha, so selfish it boggles the mind. Who said Anything about “ever” anyway. Did I mention how selfish you appear to be???And the freedom to infect everyone around you! Yes!Good to see we still have freedom of religion in America.
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
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.
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.
"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
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
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
There are limitations to Constitutional rights that prevent folks from leveraging the Constitution to protect them from putting others safety at risk.
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.www.theatlantic.com
But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
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?
It isn't and it never was
and the ruling was overturned
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.
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
So which case are you talking about...?
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
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).
So you are talking about Brandenburg v. Ohio
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]