4 ms·

> what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court stated that "debate on public issues sh

> what sort of speech warrants protection in a free society In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court stated that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case.

Causality1 5y ago
I wish people would quit trotting that out. Shouting "fire" in a theater is perfectly legal.
- edoceo 5y ago
  Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try. And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... "speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."
  - Causality1 5y ago
    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...
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    > Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try. Being a devil's advocate, that's been tried multiple time by faulty fire alarms.
  - 6f8986c3 5y ago
    False as dictated by who? Big Tech San Francisco censored the lab leak hypothesis, now accepted as credible. During the lockdowns, politicians freely held dinners and mingled, mask-free with their friends. For those less equal than others, you were fined or arrested. Invading in the Capitol was "peaceful protest" in 2018 when Democrats did it, but "insurrection" in 2021, because Republicans did it. The New York Times now ranks below Breitbart in terms of credibility. Same goes for universities. You know why people don't "trust the science"? Because when you mix politics and science, you get politics, not science. "Dangerous and false" now just means "isn't approved by CNN today, but might be tomorrow if convenient".
    - edoceo 5y ago
      2018 had 100s of arrest. 2021 had folks die/get murdered. I can see how you are confused.
      - TMWNN 5y ago
        >2021 had folks die/get murdered. The one person who died violently was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot. (And before you mention him, Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-extinguisher/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sicknick-capitol-police-officer-died-two-str/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).)
    - bccdee 5y ago
      "Big tech san francisco" has no obligation to platform anything. They can choose which posts they want to leave up based on their own whims. Now, if the government were to crack down on lab leak speculation, that would be a legal free speech issue. Slander, meanwhile, is by definition false (as determined by a court). If the court finds that it isn't false, then it wasn't slander. Thus it isn't protected by law, and the state can prosecute you over it.
  - rolobio 5y ago
    It is legal. What if there actually is a fire?
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  It is not legal, at least in the US, partly due to the quote from the post above. It will be very hard for anyone to prove that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comprises a "debate on public issue".
caseysoftware 5y ago
> Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case. That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged on "dangerous and false" and was reconsidered in Brandenburg v Ohio[1] and the standard was raised to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Effectively: - If the "dangerous" speech is false or likely to "incite imminent lawless action", you have trouble. - If the "dangerous" speech is debatable as true or not OR debatable on if it would "incite imminent lawless action", then it's way less clear. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- int_19h 5y ago
  It's also worth mentioning that the Schenck case was about distribution of leaflets with anti-war (WW1) propaganda and encouraging draft dodging. So not only there's an obvious slippery slope in this argument, but it was exercised as soon as it was presented.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  To be fair, that just puts it with "those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither", "information wants to be free" and "I'm not my brother's keeper" in the category of aphorisms that are valid as typically used despite their original coinage being in service of bullshit. (Edit: or possibly honest mistakes for the information one; I don't remember offhand.)

Causality1 5y ago

I wish people would quit trotting that out. Shouting "fire" in a theater is perfectly legal.

edoceo 5y ago
Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try. And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... "speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."
- Causality1 5y ago
  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...
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  > Please try and tell me/us how it works out. I'm not willing to try. Being a devil's advocate, that's been tried multiple time by faulty fire alarms.
- 6f8986c3 5y ago
  False as dictated by who? Big Tech San Francisco censored the lab leak hypothesis, now accepted as credible. During the lockdowns, politicians freely held dinners and mingled, mask-free with their friends. For those less equal than others, you were fined or arrested. Invading in the Capitol was "peaceful protest" in 2018 when Democrats did it, but "insurrection" in 2021, because Republicans did it. The New York Times now ranks below Breitbart in terms of credibility. Same goes for universities. You know why people don't "trust the science"? Because when you mix politics and science, you get politics, not science. "Dangerous and false" now just means "isn't approved by CNN today, but might be tomorrow if convenient".
  - edoceo 5y ago
    2018 had 100s of arrest. 2021 had folks die/get murdered. I can see how you are confused.
    - TMWNN 5y ago
      >2021 had folks die/get murdered. The one person who died violently was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot. (And before you mention him, Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-extinguisher/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sicknick-capitol-police-officer-died-two-str/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).)
  - bccdee 5y ago
    "Big tech san francisco" has no obligation to platform anything. They can choose which posts they want to leave up based on their own whims. Now, if the government were to crack down on lab leak speculation, that would be a legal free speech issue. Slander, meanwhile, is by definition false (as determined by a court). If the court finds that it isn't false, then it wasn't slander. Thus it isn't protected by law, and the state can prosecute you over it.
- rolobio 5y ago
  It is legal. What if there actually is a fire?
AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
It is not legal, at least in the US, partly due to the quote from the post above. It will be very hard for anyone to prove that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comprises a "debate on public issue".

caseysoftware 5y ago

> Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case. That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged on "dangerous and false" and was reconsidered in Brandenburg v Ohio[1] and the standard was raised to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Effectively: - If the "dangerous" speech is false or likely to "incite imminent lawless action", you have trouble. - If the "dangerous" speech is debatable as true or not OR debatable on if it would "incite imminent lawless action", then it's way less clear. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

int_19h 5y ago
It's also worth mentioning that the Schenck case was about distribution of leaflets with anti-war (WW1) propaganda and encouraging draft dodging. So not only there's an obvious slippery slope in this argument, but it was exercised as soon as it was presented.
a1369209993 5y ago
To be fair, that just puts it with "those who give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither", "information wants to be free" and "I'm not my brother's keeper" in the category of aphorisms that are valid as typically used despite their original coinage being in service of bullshit. (Edit: or possibly honest mistakes for the information one; I don't remember offhand.)