4 ms·

This should not be causing indignation. I think most of you agree with Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes that: The most stringent protection of free speech would no

This should not be causing indignation. I think most of you agree with Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes that: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. (whether or not you agree with the decision in the Schenck case.) I assume that the inappropriate jokes that are being referred to are related to people claiming that they have a dangerous item. We arrest people for making bomb threats (and we shut down schools in response to them), and I wouldn't expect any different at an airport.

drjesusphd 13y ago
> people claiming that they have a dangerous item I imagine it's far more broad than that. How about jokes that involve mentioning said dangerous item in any respect. By all means, take seriously any claim of posessing these items, for exactly the reason you describe; you don't want to cause a panic. Words mean something. Just because someone said the word "bomb" doesn't mean they're claiming to be carrying one.
betterunix 13y ago
"(whether or not you agree with the decision in the Schenck case.)" The problem is that the statement was used not only to support the decision in that case, but could be used to support any restriction on free speech rights -- which you yourself have done. You can always claim that allowing some particular form of speech would create a panic or disrupt public order, which it is joking about airport security, handing out anti-draft literature, or voicing disapproval of the president.
- thetwiceler 13y ago
  I agree; it is up to us to decide what constitutes a "clear and present danger." You can always claim anything you want, but you'll have a difficult time convincing me that voicing disapproval of the president constitutes a "clear and present danger."

drjesusphd 13y ago

> people claiming that they have a dangerous item I imagine it's far more broad than that. How about jokes that involve mentioning said dangerous item in any respect. By all means, take seriously any claim of posessing these items, for exactly the reason you describe; you don't want to cause a panic. Words mean something. Just because someone said the word "bomb" doesn't mean they're claiming to be carrying one.

betterunix 13y ago

"(whether or not you agree with the decision in the Schenck case.)" The problem is that the statement was used not only to support the decision in that case, but could be used to support any restriction on free speech rights -- which you yourself have done. You can always claim that allowing some particular form of speech would create a panic or disrupt public order, which it is joking about airport security, handing out anti-draft literature, or voicing disapproval of the president.

thetwiceler 13y ago
I agree; it is up to us to decide what constitutes a "clear and present danger." You can always claim anything you want, but you'll have a difficult time convincing me that voicing disapproval of the president constitutes a "clear and present danger."