4 ms·

So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?

by steeve 4y ago

somenameforme 4y ago
There's a fun story related to that quote. It's a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the same Supreme Court Justice also well known for his "two generations of imbeciles" quote in a ruling in defense of eugenics. The quote comes from the case Schenck v United States [1]. Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft. So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
evandale 4y ago
Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.
- steeve 4y ago
  So you _do_ draw a line.
  - evandale 4y ago
    Yes and that line is drawn at an action, not a word. People can talk about whatever they want and there isn't a line I would draw anywhere that said "you can't talk about that". People can _talk_ about whatever they want.
    - steeve 4y ago
      You're playing with words. Let's go there. Perhaps I'm discussing the fire loud enough for people to hear. How do you differentiate between "word" and "action"?

4 ms·

So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?

by steeve 4y ago

So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?

somenameforme 4y ago
There's a fun story related to that quote. It's a quote from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the same Supreme Court Justice also well known for his "two generations of imbeciles" quote in a ruling in defense of eugenics. The quote comes from the case Schenck v United States [1]. Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft. So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
evandale 4y ago
Yes, if people want to discuss fire in a crowded movie theatre they are free to do that. That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.
- steeve 4y ago
  So you _do_ draw a line.
  - evandale 4y ago
    Yes and that line is drawn at an action, not a word. People can talk about whatever they want and there isn't a line I would draw anywhere that said "you can't talk about that". People can _talk_ about whatever they want.
    - steeve 4y ago
      You're playing with words. Let's go there. Perhaps I'm discussing the fire loud enough for people to hear. How do you differentiate between "word" and "action"?