3 ms·

> Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal No it's not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

garg 6y ago
It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example. Edit: People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct: > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. > Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  And "speech brigaded with action" would still have to pass the muster of being "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". One would have to prove a criminal element (almost always a mens rea) in addition to such speech rather than holding the presumption that the words themselves carry a distinguishing factor among other things. You're right to say it's prosecutable (although technically anything is prosecutable), however what you appear to allude to (and I could be wrong in assuming that of your claim) is that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is prima facie unprotected speech. If so, then that hasn't been true since the Brandenburg test was instituted.

garg 6y ago

It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example. Edit: People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct: > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. > Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)
Dracophoenix 6y ago
And "speech brigaded with action" would still have to pass the muster of being "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". One would have to prove a criminal element (almost always a mens rea) in addition to such speech rather than holding the presumption that the words themselves carry a distinguishing factor among other things. You're right to say it's prosecutable (although technically anything is prosecutable), however what you appear to allude to (and I could be wrong in assuming that of your claim) is that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is prima facie unprotected speech. If so, then that hasn't been true since the Brandenburg test was instituted.