politics

hideshow 4 child comments

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]

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[+] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 4 child comments

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.

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)

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.