5 ms·

Right up there in the annals of misquotes with: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Right up there in the annals of misquotes with: They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Often mangled to something like: Those that would give up freedom deserve neither freedom nor safety Often used in response to people who are willing to give up the freedom to own heavy military ordinance, and the like. http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-said/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-ben-franklin-really-...

the_ancient 12y ago
WTF does gun control have to do with this topic?
- hellbanner 12y ago
  Guns are just physical information
  - krapp 12y ago
    Only in the sense that all matter in the universe can be defined as "physical information."
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Nothing, I was sharing another abused misquote. It seemed in the spirit.
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    While the quote may be abused, anyone that believes that Franklin, would support gun control does not understand history. In 1776 I am sure you would have been a Tory siding with the Crown.
- rmc 12y ago
  USAians do love their guns.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    'USAian' isn't a word. Deal with it.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    expat living in canada. NRA lifetime member. left a small cache of weapons with friends and family when I moved. I miss my guns.
XorNot 12y ago
Also that he uses the term 'essential' there. I'll bet he wasn't thinking its essential people be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.
- alexbecker 12y ago
  Incidentally, the "yell fire in a crowded theater" quote is also frequently abused, as it was part of a blatantly wrong and later overturned Supreme Court opinion holding that it was illegal to oppose the draft (which probably is an essential freedom).
  - XorNot 12y ago
    I'll have to look it up, because I'm pretty sure they didn't find you could. They overturned the actual suppressing draft opposition. You definitely don't have the right to directly endanger lives via "speech" - i.e. you can't claim free speech as protection for spreading false or misleading information that results in death, at least knowingly (which is more often the crux of such an argument).
    - alexbecker 12y ago
      (Obligatory IANAL) Under the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling, the State can only prohibit "dangerous" speech if it is both intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action. The opinion is explicitly overturning the later case of Whitney v. California but in doing so fundamentally undermines Justice Holmes' opinion in Schenck. To quote the opinion: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I do not think distributing pamphlets advocating resisting the draft meets this standard. EDIT: On rereading, it looks like your comment is saying that yelling fire in a crowded theater remains prohibited. I quite agree. I just think it's misleading to cite a piece of an opinion which was largely overturned as evidence for some legal position. Rather the later case law should be cited to make such an argument.
- 12y ago

the_ancient 12y ago

WTF does gun control have to do with this topic?

hellbanner 12y ago
Guns are just physical information
- krapp 12y ago
  Only in the sense that all matter in the universe can be defined as "physical information."
sliverstorm 12y ago
Nothing, I was sharing another abused misquote. It seemed in the spirit.
- the_ancient 12y ago
  While the quote may be abused, anyone that believes that Franklin, would support gun control does not understand history. In 1776 I am sure you would have been a Tory siding with the Crown.
rmc 12y ago
USAians do love their guns.
- deciplex 12y ago
  'USAian' isn't a word. Deal with it.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  expat living in canada. NRA lifetime member. left a small cache of weapons with friends and family when I moved. I miss my guns.

XorNot 12y ago

Also that he uses the term 'essential' there. I'll bet he wasn't thinking its essential people be allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.

alexbecker 12y ago
Incidentally, the "yell fire in a crowded theater" quote is also frequently abused, as it was part of a blatantly wrong and later overturned Supreme Court opinion holding that it was illegal to oppose the draft (which probably is an essential freedom).
- XorNot 12y ago
  I'll have to look it up, because I'm pretty sure they didn't find you could. They overturned the actual suppressing draft opposition. You definitely don't have the right to directly endanger lives via "speech" - i.e. you can't claim free speech as protection for spreading false or misleading information that results in death, at least knowingly (which is more often the crux of such an argument).
  - alexbecker 12y ago
    (Obligatory IANAL) Under the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling, the State can only prohibit "dangerous" speech if it is both intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action. The opinion is explicitly overturning the later case of Whitney v. California but in doing so fundamentally undermines Justice Holmes' opinion in Schenck. To quote the opinion: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." I do not think distributing pamphlets advocating resisting the draft meets this standard. EDIT: On rereading, it looks like your comment is saying that yelling fire in a crowded theater remains prohibited. I quite agree. I just think it's misleading to cite a piece of an opinion which was largely overturned as evidence for some legal position. Rather the later case law should be cited to make such an argument.
12y ago