5 ms·

You can't yell Fire in a movie theatre if there's no fire. Your speech can't disturb the peace, your protest can be assigned to a specific location. Perhaps

by sjg007 4y ago

You can't yell Fire in a movie theatre if there's no fire. Your speech can't disturb the peace, your protest can be assigned to a specific location. Perhaps we need online equivalents. Online on one hand you have 4chan and the other Hacker News. It's a race to the bottom in some sense if all bets are off.

Maursault 4y ago
> You can't yell Fire in a movie theatre if there's no fire. Actually Schenck v. United States was partially overturned and severely limited 53 years ago, so that hasn't been correct, technically, for some time. iow, you probably can shout fire in a crowded theater, but it depends on the circumstances whether you'll be arrested, whether you've presented a clear and present danger, whether you caused a stampede, whether anyone was injured or killed. But if you are arrested, it won't be a free speech case. The charge will be disorderly conduct, or negligent homicide, or some other charge. Justice Holmes' quote has sort of taken on a life of its own as a determination of what speech is not protected, but really there's no law against it. FWIW, I'm not advocating for it, just being pedantic.
- andrew_ 4y ago
  It's wild how the "fire" argument continues to be regurgitated as if from the mouth of a network talking head. Thanks for dousing that quickly.
  - sjg007 4y ago
    Maybe you should read Brandenburg v. Ohio first.
    - andrew_ 4y ago
      Good to have mentioned this. The interpretation of "immenent lawless behavior" varies greatly. My wife is an attorney and very recently was on a case where this particular case was cited. While I get your intent in mentioning it, the case is very specific and while Schenck is cited, it does not translate directly to "you can't say fire in a theater," but rather it's far more nuanced. It also doesn't change the fact that the "fire" argument is a lazy slinging of words lacking appropriate nuance.
      - sjg007 4y ago
        If we are paraphrasing for the general public I think nuance was thrown out long ago with the bath water. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is a paraphrase itself, obviously context matters and always has.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Actually Schenck v. United States was partially overturned and severely limited 53 years ago, so that hasn't been correct, technically, for some time Actually, the “fire” line was dicta in Schenck, so it technically was never true.
  - HideousKojima 4y ago
    And it was part of an argument in support of the government shutting down opposition to the draft.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > The charge will be disorderly conduct, or negligent homicide, or some other charge This…seems like splitting hairs in a way to me. It seems like a pretty clear acknowledgment that, in certain contexts, speech can be criminal. After all, in those various charges it won’t be a free speech case because it’s settled law that speech in those particular contexts can result in a criminal charge. So, I agree that the infamous line from Schenck (which was dicta already) is not good law. On the other hand, there is a kernel of truth that certain speech, in certain contexts, can be illegal and result in criminal charges.
- drnonsense42 4y ago
  Oh, here we go. Someone expressing an opinion you find extremely offensive on the internet is equivalent to someone directly, unambiguously causing a stampede. But, but, those hurtful internet words caused the “capital insurrection”! When did the modern liberal turn into the christian quack?
jesusofnazarath 4y ago
initplus 4y ago
I really dislike the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy - it was originally used in a court judgement where the accused had spoken out publicly against the draft. It's honestly madness that this "fire in a crowded theatre" still comes up given where it originated - a court case where exactly the kind of speech that people worry about being restricted was in fact restricted.
- sjg007 4y ago
  To take a both sides view, I don't think anyone actually understands what it means, including the Supremes. Speech can clearly be regulated even in government bodies. You cannot disclose classified information even if you assert freedom of speech. You cannot disclose under a private NDA which the government will enforce that on behalf of a third party --- which is a wild argument if we have freedom of speech as in be free from government persecution. The economic penalty in many cases is equivalent to the criminal penalty (minus the scarlet letter). In fact the government will enforce anti-competes which is the ultimate suppression of speech. So the whole thing is a mess and fubar.

by sjg007 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago

> You can't yell Fire in a movie theatre if there's no fire. Actually Schenck v. United States was partially overturned and severely limited 53 years ago, so that hasn't been correct, technically, for some time. iow, you probably can shout fire in a crowded theater, but it depends on the circumstances whether you'll be arrested, whether you've presented a clear and present danger, whether you caused a stampede, whether anyone was injured or killed. But if you are arrested, it won't be a free speech case. The charge will be disorderly conduct, or negligent homicide, or some other charge. Justice Holmes' quote has sort of taken on a life of its own as a determination of what speech is not protected, but really there's no law against it. FWIW, I'm not advocating for it, just being pedantic.

andrew_ 4y ago
It's wild how the "fire" argument continues to be regurgitated as if from the mouth of a network talking head. Thanks for dousing that quickly.
- sjg007 4y ago
  Maybe you should read Brandenburg v. Ohio first.
  - andrew_ 4y ago
    Good to have mentioned this. The interpretation of "immenent lawless behavior" varies greatly. My wife is an attorney and very recently was on a case where this particular case was cited. While I get your intent in mentioning it, the case is very specific and while Schenck is cited, it does not translate directly to "you can't say fire in a theater," but rather it's far more nuanced. It also doesn't change the fact that the "fire" argument is a lazy slinging of words lacking appropriate nuance.
    - sjg007 4y ago
      If we are paraphrasing for the general public I think nuance was thrown out long ago with the bath water. Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is a paraphrase itself, obviously context matters and always has.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Actually Schenck v. United States was partially overturned and severely limited 53 years ago, so that hasn't been correct, technically, for some time Actually, the “fire” line was dicta in Schenck, so it technically was never true.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  And it was part of an argument in support of the government shutting down opposition to the draft.
ncallaway 4y ago
> The charge will be disorderly conduct, or negligent homicide, or some other charge This…seems like splitting hairs in a way to me. It seems like a pretty clear acknowledgment that, in certain contexts, speech can be criminal. After all, in those various charges it won’t be a free speech case because it’s settled law that speech in those particular contexts can result in a criminal charge. So, I agree that the infamous line from Schenck (which was dicta already) is not good law. On the other hand, there is a kernel of truth that certain speech, in certain contexts, can be illegal and result in criminal charges.
drnonsense42 4y ago
Oh, here we go. Someone expressing an opinion you find extremely offensive on the internet is equivalent to someone directly, unambiguously causing a stampede. But, but, those hurtful internet words caused the “capital insurrection”! When did the modern liberal turn into the christian quack?

jesusofnazarath 4y ago

initplus 4y ago

I really dislike the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy - it was originally used in a court judgement where the accused had spoken out publicly against the draft. It's honestly madness that this "fire in a crowded theatre" still comes up given where it originated - a court case where exactly the kind of speech that people worry about being restricted was in fact restricted.

sjg007 4y ago
To take a both sides view, I don't think anyone actually understands what it means, including the Supremes. Speech can clearly be regulated even in government bodies. You cannot disclose classified information even if you assert freedom of speech. You cannot disclose under a private NDA which the government will enforce that on behalf of a third party --- which is a wild argument if we have freedom of speech as in be free from government persecution. The economic penalty in many cases is equivalent to the criminal penalty (minus the scarlet letter). In fact the government will enforce anti-competes which is the ultimate suppression of speech. So the whole thing is a mess and fubar.