4 ms·

I don't totally understand how this is not a violation of one's free speech if ideas are being banned. I can see where they get the power to prevent the patent

by x1798DE 10y ago

I don't totally understand how this is not a violation of one's free speech if ideas are being banned. I can see where they get the power to prevent the patent from issuing, but what part of the constitution allows you to ban a private citizen from speaking about their ideas?

gherkin0 10y ago
> but what part of the constitution allows you to ban a private citizen from speaking about their ideas? Perhaps no part. The article states the government has been careful to back down when challenged in order to avoid that question being decided in court.
URSpider94 10y ago
The part about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." There are tons of restrictions on free speech, the government must prove a compelling interest.
- dalke 10y ago
  There are restrictions on "time, manner, and place". You can't use a bullhorn to make political speeches on a suburban street corner at 3am. You can't stand up in the middle of a concert to give a discourse on Hegelian philosophy. You can't use graffiti to express your dislike of the EMU. And the "[falsely] yelling fire in a crowded theatre" was used in the decision of Schenck v. United States in 1919 to say that opposition to the draft during World War I was not covered under free speech. It was then used as cover to punish anti-government speech, and was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio : > Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

by x1798DE 10y ago

gherkin0 10y ago

> but what part of the constitution allows you to ban a private citizen from speaking about their ideas? Perhaps no part. The article states the government has been careful to back down when challenged in order to avoid that question being decided in court.

URSpider94 10y ago

The part about "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." There are tons of restrictions on free speech, the government must prove a compelling interest.

dalke 10y ago
There are restrictions on "time, manner, and place". You can't use a bullhorn to make political speeches on a suburban street corner at 3am. You can't stand up in the middle of a concert to give a discourse on Hegelian philosophy. You can't use graffiti to express your dislike of the EMU. And the "[falsely] yelling fire in a crowded theatre" was used in the decision of Schenck v. United States in 1919 to say that opposition to the draft during World War I was not covered under free speech. It was then used as cover to punish anti-government speech, and was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio : > Finally, Douglas dealt with the classic example of a man "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic". In order to explain why someone could be legitimately prosecuted for this, Douglas called it an example in which "speech is brigaded with action". In the view of Douglas and Black, this was probably the only sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.