▲ 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
[–] 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