5 ms·
> yelling fire in a crowded theater ... is not and never has been an exception to the constitution. It was written as part of a dissent which has been thorough
by unanswered 5y ago
> yelling fire in a crowded theater
... is not and never has been an exception to the constitution. It was written as part of a dissent which has been thoroughly ignored and repudiated except by people who don't understand the first thing about US law.
- kube-system 5y agoIt is technically incorrect (or at least, untested to the current standard), but it's a useful and more understandable approximate than the technically correct "imminent lawless action"... and a lot more palatable than quoting the KKK leader whose case set that standard.
- anjbe 5y agoYes, much more palatable to quote a decision that used the phrase to argue protesting the draft is a violation of the Espionage Act.
- kube-system 5y agoI can't tell if this is sarcasm, but yes, I agree. That is more palatable than quoting violent white supremacist rhetoric.
- lisper 5y agoYou are mistaken. It was written by Oliver Wendel Holmes writing for a unanimous court in Schenck v. United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Granted that decision was later partially overturned, but the general principle that the first amendment protections are not absolute remains in force, and there are many extant examples: libel laws, laws barring false advertising, and laws against incitement of violence are all constitutional.