you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 136 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    If only people got this riled up whenever the other side broke the rules...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Are they in session while walking the halls?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech for decades now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (2 children)
  • [+] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent