4 ms·
If I were a braver man, I would stand in the middle of a crowded airport security line and yell "BOOM". There are so many potential points of vulnerability in a
by lukifer 13y ago
If I were a braver man, I would stand in the middle of a crowded airport security line and yell "BOOM". There are so many potential points of vulnerability in an open society that eternally fighting the last war is absurd.
As it is, I quietly protest in the only way I know: I avoiding flying unless it's impossible, and take road trips instead, despite the dramatically higher safety risks. I've come to deeply loathe the airport experience.
- eli 13y agoErr, you know the "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right? I'm all for civil disobedience, but I'd suggest something that doesn't actually cause a panic.
- lukifer 13y agoAs I said, I'm not actually about to do it. Perhaps just yelling: "If I were a bomb, you'd all be dead. This line makes you less safe!", or something like it, would avoid causing a panic. Even so, I'd still have the expectation of being arrested.
- jlgreco 13y ago> "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right? It is an example of nothing of the sort, since that scenario never happened. That hypothetical scenario was dreamed up to justify the arrest of a war/draft protester for what was plainly political speech.
- eli 13y agoYeah, I know... it's a metaphor. The point is that you don't have the right to literally say whatever words you want, absolutely whenever you want (nor, I think, should you). The TSA stuff is bonkers, though, and I think totally unconstitutional.
- aliakbarkhan 13y agoNo, you don't know. As the comment you replied to and misunderstood pointed out, that metaphor was originally used in the context of a SCOTUS ruling which made it a criminal act to distribute anti-draft pamphlets -- a ruling which was overturned in 1969. By continuing to invoke it, you're misunderstanding the original intent and also perpetuating the myth that the phrase has any basis in current U.S. law.
- eli 13y agoI don't think it's relevant to the point I was making especially if we both agree that one cannot, in fact, expect first amendment protection for falsely yelling fire in a theater.
- coldtea 13y agoNo, he DOES now. The original intent was, beside whatever political motivation, to give an "example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment". Exactly as he wrote.
- TwiztidK 13y agoActually, that scenario has happened. It was never tried in court, but yelling "Fire" in a crowded building has happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
- Sambdala 13y agoThat phrase came from a case that was completely unrelated to the content of the quote, and was used to claim that writing anti-draft pamphlets was illegal speech. That verdict was later effectively overturned, and the judge who first said those words also had this to say shortly afterward in another free speech case: "The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out." It's time to stop trotting out that fear-mongering phrase.
- Houshalter 13y agoI don't think yelling anything in public is protected by free speech, but it's hardly going to cause a panic or hurt anyone. If he yelled "BOMB!" that would be different.