▲ 737 ▼ Congressman ‘Caught on Camera’ Pulling Fire Alarm to in Apparent Attempt to Delay Vote to Avoid Shutdown (www.mediaite.com) submitted 2 years ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world 124 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 136 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] evatronic@lemm.ee 95 points 2 years ago (2 children) The story I'm hearing elsewhere is he pulled the alarm to delay the vote, as Republicans are violating their "72 hours to read the bill" rule they agreed to at the start of this Congressional term. While I don't condone the actions, the result was a delay, long enough for representatives to read a bill they are voting on, which is something that should always be allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just find it hilarious that it's a former school principal that pulled this shit. He's probably expelled kids for doing the same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SSX@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago At the same time, he finally gets to experience the hilarity of it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] scottywh@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago That certainly adds interesting context. I previously read that the 72 page bill was given to House members initially with only about an hour before the vote to read and review it so that helps me make more sense of it than my own face value first conclusion. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (2 children) If only people got this riled up whenever the other side broke the rules... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 years ago The fucking rage of people doing minor dumbshit stuff for kind of good reasons. Won't someone think of the precious norms. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] spark947@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, but in this case it seems like the dude was rushing back to fund the government and made a genuine mistake because he was in a hurry. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 years ago* Reading a bill is part of a normal procedure and the outcome is more important. So, while I don't condone the action, at the end of the day, if the outcome benefits people other than himself, then I can understand his action. The thing is they weren't given enough time to read as Republicans violated their own 72 hours to read the bill rule. permalink fedilink source parent [+] treefrog@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, shit. Now they're all going to do it. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I think McCarthy just found out the only way to stay in power. Every time Gaetz tries to file a motion to vacate the speakership, McCarthy will just pull the fire alarm. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are they in session while walking the halls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Im14abeer@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) In session is all time not in recess. They are also protected traveling to D.C. from their home district. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me. permalink fedilink source parent [+] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech for decades now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 2 years ago* (2 children) That was overturned in 69. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) ... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 2 years ago No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts. But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn't whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace. Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer's intent wasn't to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, the case was about protesting war. So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViciousTangerine@lemmings.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law. If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned. Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago "Free speech is yelling theater in a crowded fire." permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheSanSabaSongbird@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago You would have to prove intent, which is almost impossible. I accidentally set off a fire alarm once. The relevant signage was totally ambiguous and not even remotely clear. permalink fedilink source parent [–] justabigemptyhole@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That actually is protected speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio permalink fedilink source parent [+] 30mag@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 95 points 2 years ago (2 children) The story I'm hearing elsewhere is he pulled the alarm to delay the vote, as Republicans are violating their "72 hours to read the bill" rule they agreed to at the start of this Congressional term. While I don't condone the actions, the result was a delay, long enough for representatives to read a bill they are voting on, which is something that should always be allowed. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just find it hilarious that it's a former school principal that pulled this shit. He's probably expelled kids for doing the same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SSX@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago At the same time, he finally gets to experience the hilarity of it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] scottywh@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago That certainly adds interesting context. I previously read that the 72 page bill was given to House members initially with only about an hour before the vote to read and review it so that helps me make more sense of it than my own face value first conclusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) I just find it hilarious that it's a former school principal that pulled this shit. He's probably expelled kids for doing the same. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SSX@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago At the same time, he finally gets to experience the hilarity of it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SSX@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago At the same time, he finally gets to experience the hilarity of it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago That certainly adds interesting context. I previously read that the 72 page bill was given to House members initially with only about an hour before the vote to read and review it so that helps me make more sense of it than my own face value first conclusion. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (2 children) If only people got this riled up whenever the other side broke the rules... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 years ago The fucking rage of people doing minor dumbshit stuff for kind of good reasons. Won't someone think of the precious norms. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] spark947@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, but in this case it seems like the dude was rushing back to fund the government and made a genuine mistake because he was in a hurry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 16 points 2 years ago The fucking rage of people doing minor dumbshit stuff for kind of good reasons. Won't someone think of the precious norms. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] spark947@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, but in this case it seems like the dude was rushing back to fund the government and made a genuine mistake because he was in a hurry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spark947@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Yeah, but in this case it seems like the dude was rushing back to fund the government and made a genuine mistake because he was in a hurry. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Reptorian@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 years ago* Reading a bill is part of a normal procedure and the outcome is more important. So, while I don't condone the action, at the end of the day, if the outcome benefits people other than himself, then I can understand his action. The thing is they weren't given enough time to read as Republicans violated their own 72 hours to read the bill rule. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] treefrog@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, shit. Now they're all going to do it. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I think McCarthy just found out the only way to stay in power. Every time Gaetz tries to file a motion to vacate the speakership, McCarthy will just pull the fire alarm. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are they in session while walking the halls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Im14abeer@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) In session is all time not in recess. They are also protected traveling to D.C. from their home district. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me. permalink fedilink source parent [+] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Well, shit. Now they're all going to do it. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I think McCarthy just found out the only way to stay in power. Every time Gaetz tries to file a motion to vacate the speakership, McCarthy will just pull the fire alarm. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago I think McCarthy just found out the only way to stay in power. Every time Gaetz tries to file a motion to vacate the speakership, McCarthy will just pull the fire alarm. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) Are they in session while walking the halls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Im14abeer@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) In session is all time not in recess. They are also protected traveling to D.C. from their home district. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me. permalink fedilink source parent [+] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Im14abeer@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) In session is all time not in recess. They are also protected traveling to D.C. from their home district. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nahvi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech for decades now. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 2 years ago* (2 children) That was overturned in 69. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) ... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 2 years ago No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts. But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn't whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace. Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer's intent wasn't to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, the case was about protesting war. So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViciousTangerine@lemmings.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law. If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned. Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless. permalink fedilink source parent [–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago "Free speech is yelling theater in a crowded fire." permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 2 years ago* (2 children) That was overturned in 69. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) ... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 2 years ago No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts. But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn't whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace. Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer's intent wasn't to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, the case was about protesting war. So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViciousTangerine@lemmings.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law. If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned. Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 17 points 2 years ago* (2 children) That was overturned in 69. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) ... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 2 years ago No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts. But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn't whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace. Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer's intent wasn't to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) ... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 2 years ago No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts. But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) ... or yelled "Stop the steal, storm the captial" and someone got trampled to death. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn't innocent doesn't excuse the instigator of her death) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com -3 points 2 years ago No, because the words aren't intended to incite lawless acts. But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn't whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace. Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer's intent wasn't to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don't have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It's okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thepianistfroggollum@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago It doesn't say that and that isn't true. The first case didn't involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) No, the case was about protesting war. So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViciousTangerine@lemmings.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law. If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned. Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ViciousTangerine@lemmings.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think most people who hear the "fire in a crowded theater" line are going to think it's about protesting war. It's an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law. If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned. Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BuckyVanBuren@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law. If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned. Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of "imminent lawless action," a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck. Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 years ago "Free speech is yelling theater in a crowded fire." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago You would have to prove intent, which is almost impossible. I accidentally set off a fire alarm once. The relevant signage was totally ambiguous and not even remotely clear. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] justabigemptyhole@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago That actually is protected speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio permalink fedilink source parent
[+] 30mag@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent