3 ms·
Dude read the legacy section then the follows up is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio The at
by tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Dude read the legacy section then the follows up is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
The atlantic has a decent write up https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... or the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus under the "Q: But isn't it true you can't shout fire in a crowded theater?" header.
- dijit 6y agoI only read the ACLU one but that asserts the same. The the advocation against war was deigned on the fact that you're "in danger". The fight against the government was about the sliding scale of the remit, not about the original statement being "legal" or not. Incitement is a real crime, if you knowingly falsely shout "fire" or "he's got a gun" then you're guilty of inciting panic[0]. It is unequivocolly not legal to _knowingly_ and _falsely_ incite panic. Though, proving that might be difficult, and it appears to be a misdemeanour charge, if it leads to death you can be sure you will be tried for manslaughter. [0]: https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inducing-panic/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inducing-panic/