▲ 2112 ▼ fuck this (mander.xyz) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 671 comments fedilink hide all child comments Friendly reminder: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-science-is-political/
[–] SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (3 children) Scream "Fire" at a theater. Obviously you cannot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee -11 points 2 years ago (2 children) The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee -9 points 2 years ago No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee -11 points 2 years ago (2 children) The phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” is outdated and legally irrelevant to modern free speech discussions. Its origin from Schenck v. United States (1919) was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which set a much higher standard for restricting speech. Modern First Amendment doctrine protects almost all speech unless it directly incites imminent violence or crime. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee -9 points 2 years ago No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee -9 points 2 years ago No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] MisanthropiCynic@lemm.ee -9 points 2 years ago No. Even that limitation is unconstitutional. Look up the actual convictions and appeal rates for them The most recent one is just a couple of months old where a guy threatened Kevin McCarthy, the House speaker, over 100 times on the phone and he only got probation because the judge knew the prison sentence wouldn’t withstand appeal. permalink fedilink source parent