3 ms·

There are parts of the constitution open to interpretation, such as the 2nd amendment, which is just poor sentence structure. The 1st is very clear and does no

There are parts of the constitution open to interpretation, such as the 2nd amendment, which is just poor sentence structure. The 1st is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means. This is a good thing, since our citizens need to be able to understand and participate in this basic framework. There are many things we have done in the U.S. which have and continue to violate this 1st amendment. Just because we've encroached on it in the past should not make this SOPA threat any more palatable. Besides, SOPA appears to be more than just a 1st amendment violation. Ripping by due process is a huge problem.

cperciva 15y ago
The 1st [amendment] is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means. What's clear to you isn't necessarily clear to the supreme court. A literal reading of the 1st amendment tells me that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected, as is libel and distributing child pornography; fortunately courts have a habit of reading common sense into these things.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mindcrime 15y ago
  There's no justification for a law prohibiting shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and such a law is unconstitutional. What is justified is holding people liable for the consequences of their actions, so if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and a panic occurs and people are injured, you should be punished. You don't need laws prohibiting arbitrary behaviors that might or might not cause any actual harm, if you just enforce strict liability. And the deterrent effect is still there, since anybody reasonable (read: the same people who would obey "the law" in the first place) would know better than to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, due to the consequences. And in the freak occurrence where somebody does shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and nothing happens, they aren't punished for a non-event.

cperciva 15y ago

The 1st [amendment] is very clear and does not require some uber-con-law expert to tell us what it means. What's clear to you isn't necessarily clear to the supreme court. A literal reading of the 1st amendment tells me that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre is constitutionally protected, as is libel and distributing child pornography; fortunately courts have a habit of reading common sense into these things.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mindcrime 15y ago
There's no justification for a law prohibiting shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and such a law is unconstitutional. What is justified is holding people liable for the consequences of their actions, so if you shout "fire" in a crowded theater and a panic occurs and people are injured, you should be punished. You don't need laws prohibiting arbitrary behaviors that might or might not cause any actual harm, if you just enforce strict liability. And the deterrent effect is still there, since anybody reasonable (read: the same people who would obey "the law" in the first place) would know better than to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, due to the consequences. And in the freak occurrence where somebody does shout "fire" in a crowded theater, and nothing happens, they aren't punished for a non-event.