4 ms·
FYI: 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/
by nova22033 6y ago
FYI: 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?