3 ms·

>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ h

by opo 8y ago

>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. 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... >...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.

gowld 8y ago
Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-nearly-100-murdered-stormfront-users https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-n... > Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
- ra1n85 8y ago
  >Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. How did free speech carry out terrorist murders?
- jimbokun 8y ago
  Well now that we Americans can murder people directly with words, we can merge the first and second amendments.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
…right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. (IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder)
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The ruling standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which draws the line at incitement to "imminent lawless action." Which is to say, you have to be rallying people to start a riot right now. Doing something that is merely provocative, such as marching a neo-Nazi parade through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors, is protected First Amendment speech. Literally shouting fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to cause a panic and perhaps kill people, would not be protected speech, but pretty much anything less would be protected speech.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    No contest here! The only thing my reply addresses is the parent's assertion that the specific example of shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected speech.
- opo 8y ago
  >...but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. Well, the article discusses the origin of the idea that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal. It also points out that Brandenburg v. Ohio is the actual relevant decision. For more context on the Brandenberg decision: >...Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law. >...Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action. >With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action." >So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety. http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

by opo 8y ago

gowld 8y ago

Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-nearly-100-murdered-stormfront-users https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-n... > Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

ra1n85 8y ago
>Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. How did free speech carry out terrorist murders?
jimbokun 8y ago
Well now that we Americans can murder people directly with words, we can merge the first and second amendments.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

…right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. (IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder)

jcranmer 8y ago
The ruling standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which draws the line at incitement to "imminent lawless action." Which is to say, you have to be rallying people to start a riot right now. Doing something that is merely provocative, such as marching a neo-Nazi parade through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors, is protected First Amendment speech. Literally shouting fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to cause a panic and perhaps kill people, would not be protected speech, but pretty much anything less would be protected speech.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  No contest here! The only thing my reply addresses is the parent's assertion that the specific example of shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected speech.
opo 8y ago
>...but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. Well, the article discusses the origin of the idea that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal. It also points out that Brandenburg v. Ohio is the actual relevant decision. For more context on the Brandenberg decision: >...Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law. >...Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action. >With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action." >So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety. http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...