4 ms·
While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government. So while you
by crusso 14y ago
While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government.
So while you can quibble over yelling "fire" in a theater, silencing speech against prosecution from the government is diametrically opposed to the intent of the first amendment.
- misnome 14y ago> While there are limits in the first amendment, its primary purpose is to allow individual citizens to speak out against the tyranny of government. Then, I think someone forgot to tell the government that.
- carbocation 14y agoNot sure if you're kidding, cynical, or serious. The entire framework of the US government's core documents and the non-legal documents written by the founders around the same time completely support the notion that these documents have purposes, chief among which is the defense of citizens from the government itself.
- nightpool 14y agoNot the original poster, but I think his comment was meant to be interpreted as "Somebody should remind our current government of its original vision"
- AnIrishDuck 14y ago> you can quibble over yelling "fire" in a theater FYI, even this argument has been rejected for decades. Now, your speech must be likely to cause "imminent lawless action". [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- gamblor956 14y agoNo, you're misunderstanding Brandenburg. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not about causing lawless action; the people fleeing in panic are behaving lawfully. The act of yelling "fire" is outlawed because that panic can result in grave bodily harm to others, and is a foreseeable result of doing so. Brandenburg deals with inflammatory speech (usually hate speech but also includes seditious speech), which must rise to the level of incitement to be criminal, specifically meaning that you must incite others to actually hurt a third party or to actually take seditious actions against the government. Otherwise, the inflammatory speech is justy the expression of personal opinion, which is directly protected by the 1st Amendment.
- yew 14y agoThe 'fire in a crowded theatre' standard was a metaphor for opposing the draft originating in Schenck v United States. Neither Schenck nor Brandenburg (which is considered to relate to Schenck) relate to actually yelling the word 'fire' more than indirectly.
- AnIrishDuck 14y agoI was (poorly) raging against the "fire in a crowded theater" metaphor, which gets trotted out too often [1]. I'm mildly interested in the actual hypothetical; out of curiosity can you cite caselaw that backs your claim (The act of yelling "fire" is outlawed because that panic can result in grave bodily harm to others, and is a foreseeable result of doing so)? 1. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac...
- foobarqux 14y agohttp://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time...
- flyinRyan 14y agoSo, ironically, the "fire in a theater" phrase actually indicates the government can simply ignore their own laws any time they feel like it, as they did when the phrase was uttered.