4 ms·

> 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 la

> 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 ago
No, 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 ago
  The '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 ago
  I 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...

gamblor956 14y ago

No, 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 ago
The '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 ago
I 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...