The Bill of Rights is not a Suicide Pact.

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

 

[Blues Man]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and the ruling on case he was commenting on was overturned

Yet you can't cite the case or the judge, how convenient.

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

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

'Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

It's also not a slavery or subjugation pact.

 

[martybegan]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

 

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and the ruling on case he was commenting on was overturned

Yet you can't cite the case or the judge, how convenient.

He isn't wrong. If Anything bad happens AFTER yelling fire, the person can be held accountable for though.

If you yell "fire" in a theater and people simply tell you to bugger off, there was no crime.

 

[Flash]

Roberts should resign.

He took an oath to uphold the Constitution and now he is saying it ain't worth the parchment it is written on.

Bush was an idiot nominating this Moon Bat clown.

 

[Blues Man]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

it doesn't apply anywhere not even in theaters

 

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

Which is always my argument. If someone gets hurt though, then it becomes illegal.

no because the person will not be arrested for shouting fire he will be arrested for inciting a panic (maybe).

And this is a horrible example to use anyway. If someone stood up in a movie or a Broadway theater and shouted fire he would be pelted with popcorn and various other food items and thrown out of the theater by security

You are arguing with me while not disagreeing with me. It happens.

 

[Gdjjr]

Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

MSM is the culprit, parrot- wanna cracker?

 

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

and the lefty "fuck the police" mantra hasn't gotten anyone hurt?

Fuck you.

Anyone that harms another can be and most often is arrested.

So why haven't AOC et al been arrested yet?

Nobody has claimed that her words have inspired them to do anything.

 

[pknopp]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That standard doesn't apply, what applies here is law based on incitement, and what Trump said doesn't meet that standard. He didn't tell people to attack police, he didn't tell them to destroy property, he didn't tell them to break into Congress.

If someone yells "Fire in a crowded theater" and is ignored or people simply file out, no real harm done.

Now if they panic and crush people against locked doors in their attempt to get out, someone is going to be held accountable.

The person yelling "Fire" didn't yell. "Fire and crush people against the doors" but that person is most certainly responsible for what happened.

Again, the "fire" in a theater exception doesn't apply here, because there was no imminent threat implied which could result in a panic that could result in harm.

The incitement laws apply here, and those laws are very very specific about what constitutes incitement.

'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

 

[progressive hunter]

In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) in which a speech incited a riot, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson claimed that “[t]his Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means . . . that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrine logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, Facebook deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of you fucking idiots, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

We will suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

your right to free speech cannot be violated by a private entity.

the right to it cant,,, but your free speech can be taken away by private companies,,,

 

[Gdjjr]

Who said it was a suicide pact? It's lines to not be crossed by the fed gov't, inserted into the constitution, to help prevent "official" tyranny- it (the Bor) needs no interpretation as there is but one ambiguous statement, in the 4th amendment - everything else is simple English and perfectly clear-

 

[Votto]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

'Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of recent Trumper conduct and actions, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

Thus companies have to exercise that restraint and responsibility.

All to our detriment.

We will all suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

So when cities get looted and buildings burned during BLM and Antifa riots, why are their freedoms not restricted?

In fact, why is Jesse Smollett in jail since he made up a story of being attacked by Trump supporters to initiate rioting?

Even the democrat political figures in Chicago agree he made the whole thing up, yet no legal accountablity.

Just like Nancy Pelosi and her gang of rioting fomenters have no accountability either.

No, it's just the Federal government oppressing conservatives. That is what is going on here. But you are right, the more violence the more oppression will come their way

 

[there4eyeM]

I've argued this many times, especially when someone brings up the "fire in a theater" example.

You can say what you wish until someone gets hurt. Trump's rhetoric have gotten people hurt and killed.

it is not now nor has it ever been illegal to yell fire in a theater.

Certainly not if one is an actor in a play and that is the dialog. The consequences of doing so otherwise may be cause for regret by the perpetrator.

 

[pknopp]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

'Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of recent Trumper conduct and actions, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

Thus companies have to exercise that restraint and responsibility.

All to our detriment.

We will all suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

So when cities get looted and buildings burned during BLM and Antifa riots, why are their freedoms not restricted?

Thousands have been arrested.

 

[Gdjjr]

Bush was an idiot nominating this Moon Bat clown.

He obeyed his string pullers, just like they al have done for decades- follow the money, see the agenda

"Political" "Current Event"- so, where should theis post reside? Follow the Money, see the agenda- again

From the comments to the article: Up until now, Hank Johnson was just famous for being the idiot who said the island of Guam would “tip over and capsize” if it became too densely populated. Now we know the rest of the story. This article is truly illuminating. From the article: Jon Ossoff...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[pknopp]

Bush was an idiot nominating this Moon Bat clown.

He obeyed his string pullers, just like they al have done for decades- follow the money, see the agenda

"Political" "Current Event"- so, where should theis post reside? Follow the Money, see the agenda- again

From the comments to the article: Up until now, Hank Johnson was just famous for being the idiot who said the island of Guam would “tip over and capsize” if it became too densely populated. Now we know the rest of the story. This article is truly illuminating. From the article: Jon Ossoff...

www.usmessageboard.com

Trump's nominee's ruled against him also.

 

[Gdjjr]

Trump's nominee's ruled against him also.

That's immaterial, stupid.

 

[Votto]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson has claimed that the "the constitutional Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”

Robert Jackson

Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court justice from 1941 to 1954, believed strongly in separation of church and state and free speech protections First Amendment.

www.mtsu.edu

'Thomas Jefferson offered one of the earliest formulations of the sentiment, although not of the phrase. In 1803, Jefferson's ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson's personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote:

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means"

The Constitution is not a suicide pact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

***********************************************************************

This goes to of the heart of the debate we are having now regarding Parler, Twitter, and Facebook, among others, deleting calls for insurrection and violence, and cracking down on misinformation from posters.

Now, I am for a very expansive definition of the Bill of Rights, [in contrast to conservatives who have traditionally had a narrow definition of it].

But this where this Trumpist insurrection will have unintended consequences.

Because of recent Trumper conduct and actions, the American public at large will have less freedom. There will be a backlash against the violence that you losers have fomented. Thus more restrictions on free speech.

Free speech requires that the public at large exercise some kind of self-restraint and personal responsibility.

Trumpers have thrown that responsibility and restraint to the curb. They have none.

Thus companies have to exercise that restraint and responsibility.

All to our detriment.

We will all suffer because of their irresponsibility and criminal conduct.

So when cities get looted and buildings burned during BLM and Antifa riots, why are their freedoms not restricted?

Thousands have been arrested.

I know from personal friends who work for law enforcement, they were told to stand down during the riots.

And the police are held to a different standard. If someone is not obeying the law and shot unarmed, they lose their jobs

Not so in Washingon DC.