3 ms·

We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater. So the question of

We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater. So the question of whether the 'Public interests exception' should apply for a website where any reasonable user knows the content is dodgy on its best day.

ta17711771 6y ago
Stop SAYING this! Goodness HN has stopped caring about facts. This ruling was not upheld. Please stop using this example, HN.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  What specific case, then? I come here to learn. Please educate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
  - ben509 6y ago
    Schenk v US was partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. We've come around, though, as Holmes' line of reasoning is very common today. Some details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
    - bhupy 6y ago
      To add some more commentary: 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... Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected by the 1A as long as it passes the Brandenburg Test of "imminent lawless action".
  - bhupy 6y ago
    It's not accurate, it was an argument used in a SCOTUS case that has since been unanimously overturned. 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... Brandenburg v Ohio established the current standard for free speech, and it's extremely permissive.
vonmoltke 6y ago
> We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater. This is a recurring favorite bad legal take for @BadLegalTakes: https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes

ta17711771 6y ago

Stop SAYING this! Goodness HN has stopped caring about facts. This ruling was not upheld. Please stop using this example, HN.

smitty1e 6y ago
What specific case, then? I come here to learn. Please educate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
- ben509 6y ago
  Schenk v US was partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. We've come around, though, as Holmes' line of reasoning is very common today. Some details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
  - bhupy 6y ago
    To add some more commentary: 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... Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is protected by the 1A as long as it passes the Brandenburg Test of "imminent lawless action".
- bhupy 6y ago
  It's not accurate, it was an argument used in a SCOTUS case that has since been unanimously overturned. 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... Brandenburg v Ohio established the current standard for free speech, and it's extremely permissive.

vonmoltke 6y ago

> We understand the need for strict scrutiny in 1A restrictions. No trolling by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded non-combusting, crowded theater. This is a recurring favorite bad legal take for @BadLegalTakes: https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes