3 ms·
Yep, and that's what Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined.
by trollbridge 1y ago
Yep, and that's what Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined.
- mapontosevenths 1y agoThis is inaccurate. Brandenburg v. Ohio explicitly states the opposite. Justice Douglas specifically talks about the "fire in a crowded theater" issue being one of the few types of language that is specifically illegal beginning on the bottom of page 456 below. It's a PDF file of the original decision. "The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 536- 537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed insep- arable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. " https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep395/usrep395444/usrep395444.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...