6 ms·
When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
by kevinmgranger 6y ago
When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
- nova22033 6y agoFYI: Fire in a crowded theater is NOT the analogy you want to use if you defend free speech(not that this action violates the 1A) 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...
- thaumasiotes 6y agoI didn't understand that post when it was written and I don't understand your comment now. How is this different from saying "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is not a quote you should use if you are opposed to the government granting special benefits and privileges to blacks in preference to whites, because that was an idea that Martin Luther King supported? Can an idea have any value independently of the cause someone once used it to support?
- nova22033 6y agoPeople use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what that means. If Trump was planning a war on Iran, you would have no right to speak out against it because you'd be shouting "fire in a crowded theater"
- foldr 6y agoI also can't make sense of the article. The 1A clearly doesn't protect you from prosecution if you deliberately cause a disturbance by shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's an uncontroversial example illustrating that the 1A has limits. The fact that this uncontroversial example was used in support of some controversial arguments ~100 years ago is neither here nor there.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> People use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what that means. I'm thinking, but all I can see is an apparently sincere effort to make the argument that Hitler Ate Sugar ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar ). So tell me: what does that mean?
- ezekg 6y agoYet there was no censorship occurring when the left \b\b\b\b opposing side was encouraging domestic terrorism.
- wavefunction 6y agoSo you're admitting President Trump was encouraging (which legally is committing) domestic terrorism?
- everdrive 6y agoTu quoque.
- gameswithgo 6y agocertainly regular people encouraging violence get censored on facebook and twitter all the time, I've seen it, we see it all the time. It doesn't make the headlines though. Trump makes the headline because he does it and is the president. AND he has gotten a pass, for years, that regular people don't get.
- wffurr 6y agoYeah because that's a thing that happened? What "left" anyway? There's no real left in this country.
- CerealFounder 6y agoWho is "the left?" This conversation is about a specific person doing a specific act. Unless you have a specific example of something you disagree please try not to reduce the standard of discourse up in here.
- enraged_camel 6y agoWhen did a leftist public official go on Facebook and encourage protesters to smash store windows and set cars on fire? Can you give some examples?
- phkahler 6y ago>> When did a leftist public official go on Facebook and encourage protesters to smash store windows and set cars on fire? Can you give some examples? When did Trump? Can you give examples?
- andrewclunn 6y agoAh yes, either Trump is a cult leader who is threatening the very core of our democracy, or the election was rigged and we're about to get a Chinese style Manchurian candidate in the White House. I'm so glad that the media vigorously looked into these allegations of corruption and fraud, instead of dismissing them for partisan reasons, because then we might have a split, between people who get their information from mainstream outlets believing nearly half the nation are conspiracy nuts or violent bigots, and those who get their news from independent media online believing that half the nation are brain dead sheep or lying sycophants.
- jpsalm 6y agoThe allegations were thrown out by every court they got brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce and you're the sheep getting fleeced.
- namdnay 6y agoIf it’s a farce, the parent is the turkey getting stuffed :)
- throwaways885 6y agoThey should've humoured them just to shut up the people saying those things then. I think the partisanship is what's really driving people like this. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too?
- jmcgough 6y agoIt was investigated, and it is not the federal government's job to police this; the law states that individual States are responsible for that.
- ogre_codes 6y ago> The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not investigate election fraud too? What do you think they've been doing in the courts for the past month? Trumps own Justice department wouldn't even pursue it.
- BitwiseFool 6y agoDid Facebook take action against the CHAZ/CHOP? Edit: Furthermore, would suspensions and bans ALSO apply to anarchists and revolutionaries? We know the answer is 'no'. It's clear to me Facebook wanted to drop Trump for a long time and did not do so for fear of repercussions. Now that there will be a new administration it is safe for them to do it.
- wavefunction 6y agoFalse equivalence fallacy.
- Pfhortune 6y agoI think you may be confusing the US Capitol Building in DC with the Capitol Hill area of Seattle.
- manigandham 6y ago"fire in a crowded theater" is nothing more than remnants of an old opinion quoted out-of-context and neither precedent nor basis for anything of the First Amendment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jtdev 6y agoI'm sure you were advocating for the silencing of BLM leaders who were encouraging violence during recent months too...
- praestigiare 6y agoAbsolutely, where that occured, and unlike Trump, both Facebook and Twitter has no problem suspending and removing accounts of BLM advocates when they made calls for violence.
- jtdev 6y agoSean King... Still on Twitter, advocated for violence in the name of BLM for months to his > 1 million followers.
- jmcgough 6y agoThis was a coup attempt that involved breaking into congress to stop presidential succession. Are you suggesting the two are comparable?
- one2know 6y agoSo presidential succession was stopped and congress was killed? No? I think you are making shit up.
- nobody9999 6y ago>So presidential succession was stopped and congress was killed? No? I think you are making shit up. And so if I walk into a bank and demand money, but I don't get any, it's not a bank robbery? That's an interesting legal angle.
- chasd00 6y agoi want to add again, this wasn't a coup attempt. You dilute those words and they become meaningless. It hurts the people who have lived through and suffered from real coups.
- Dirlewanger 6y agoStop saying it was a coup. A bunch of mostly unarmed morons weren't overtaking anything.
- rat87 6y agoit was an attempted coup its stupidity and lack of success don't change that
- lovecg 6y agoDid you miss the part where the mob violently overtook the Capitol Building?
- bitcharmer 6y agoThese are fascist methods successfully used in the past for power grabs. I was going to explain in more detail but then I saw your HN handle...
- nobody9999 6y ago> These are fascist methods successfully used in the past for power grabs. I was going to explain in more detail but then I saw your HN handle... In case anyone was confused about the above (I was), I web searched 'Dirlewanger' and came up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger Is this considered Doxxing?
- bitcharmer 6y agoI'm confused. How is pointing out someone's HN handle doxxing?
- nobody9999 6y ago>I'm confused. How is pointing out someone's HN handle doxxing? My apologies. It was an (apparently ham-fisted) attempt at humor. Also, I wasn't referring to your comment when I said that, I was referring to mine. My apologies for any confusion on that point. Edit: Clarified my intentions WRT my previous comment.
- ArnoVW 6y agoPersonally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon.
- kansface 6y agoFree speech exists in the public square, not on a W2 (you could claim you earned $0 last year all you want, just not to the IRS). In the cases of fraud/libel, the specifics matter. > it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line. Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and hear. I am unwilling to let the government make that determination on my behalf. > Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon. Private citizens (presumably including the founding fathers) actually used to own canons before the creation of a permanent, federal army!
- ThrowawayR2 6y agoInterestingly, muzzle loaded cannons of that era, whether genuine or replica, are still legal to own in the US without a license as they are considered antiques.
- chillacy 6y agoAmerican free speech is way more broad than European free speech, they’re different legally. You could have a similar argument between American freedom of religion and French “freedom from religion”. Not an apples to apples comparison.
- tdons 6y agoChristopher Hitchens (a Brit, can we still call them European?) would disagree with you. If you have a few minutes, check the beginning of this talk [1] about free speech. He treats the exact "fire" example at the very start of the talk :-) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
- dionian 6y agoIt's only applicable if someone did yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (and there wasn't a fire). The worst Trump did here was say that people should march on Capitol Hill and "cheer on" congresspeople. I guess people are assuming this was coded language to incite violence, but I'm not buying it
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoIn the world we live in, with the Trump followers that we actually have, significant numbers of them took it as a call to violence. And that was predictable. Trump knew or should have known.