4 ms·
That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolut
by tw04 9y ago
That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up.
People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not referencing the case in question, and common sense would tell you that shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
- totalZero 9y ago> There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up. Would you mind showing me one of those examples? I just did a bit of google searching, and was unable to find one. Even the original case (Schenck v. United States) had nothing to do with fires or theaters. > shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons. The "imminent lawless action" test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio requires more than just a damaging end-result. Intent, imminence, and likelihood must all be demonstrated in order for speech to be considered illegal. Maybe that test also applies to false fire alarms in theaters, but it certainly takes more than simply causing a bad end-result to happen.
- loeg 9y agoJust to clarify, the author of that post is a practicing lawyer specializing in first amendment law. Guessing from your comments, you seem to work in software. Do you profess any particular legal expertise? As the other commenter notes, I can't find any example of 2102 being applied like this.
- tclancy 9y agoPopehat has an additional followup about Holmes' recanting his famous example: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
- rgbrenner 9y ago... under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot... No law can override the first amendment. The only question is if the first amendment protects it. If it does, then that law is unconstitutional along with any other law that attempts to infringe on it. To say that a law supersedes the constitution would make the constitution a worthless document.
- LocalH 9y agoWelcome to the state of modern civics education.