Yes, we can yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Propagandalf

SCotUS says, the test for when speech isn't free. Is that if the speech isn't going to cause imminent lawless action.

en.wikipedia.org...

The two legal prongs that constitute incitement of imminent lawless action is as follows:

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

So while yes, you can shout fire in a theater, your freedom of speech doesn't protect you if someone gets hurt because of your words caused something to happen.

That's correct. In that particular case (Brandeberg vs Ohio) the accused was calling for violence.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Propagandalf

Sorry les the more I think about this thread the dumber it seems, its like your usual cacophony of clever sounding mumbo-jumbo that when you break it down is basically utter rubbish.

TLDR version of this thread.

Humans can make noises with their mouths so we have freedom of speech......

funny you said that

i have been thinking for a while this was les and with this thread i figured for sure


imo freedom to do anything implies that i will still be free(or free of consequence) for doing it.

thats just how i look it

if there is consequence especially if you will be locked up for doing or saying something then you are not free to do it or say it.


i really dont like the angle of yeah you are free to do it but are not free from the consequence.

imo that is not freedom

if something i do or say has a consequence then i am not free to do it or say it

what up les

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Propagandalf

Some are still killed for blasphemy or renouncing their faith. Those censors, of course, do so for the "safe and effective running of society". So I'm wary of excuses such as yours.

Well like I said in my first post I believe that the constrictions put on freedom of speech should be at a absolute minimum to ensure that we can express ourselves as fully as possible. The catch is where society draws that line and all societies draw it differently. Sure in some countries you can be killed for blasphemy and I think thats wrong I am not excusing that. This is not me making excuses this is simply the reality of live we need laws that stop idiots calling in bomb threads and then defending it as freedom of speech.

What I am trying to say to you is that what you call "censors" have to be there and that absolute freedom of speech does not exist. Do you agree or disagree with this?

PS: am not getting angry or whatever, I actually like debating the finder details of freedom of speech really I do, but when you break it down what you are saying is "Humans make noise with their mouths.....freedom of speech"

Well, no, the thread is a refutation of the common argument advocating censorship, that we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes, he starts calling me that whenever he gets mad for some reason. I'm a man and I'm straight, actually.

a reply to: Propagandalf

We, as a people, are not very evolved.

We still think that saying some words will cause people to go against their better nature and commit crimes.

Like witchcraft. The witch casts a spell using a few "words" and all of a sudden, men are incapable of controlling themselves or are responsible for their actions.

We may not say it, but our society still believes in witches.

One is free to do whatever they want but one has no choice regarding the consequences for their actions. For instance if one yells fire in a crowded theatre and there is no fire & the people trample one of my loved ones to death, I have my own right to shoot that person in the head but I don't have a right to the consequences for shooting that person in the head. The problem I have is people using their free speech right to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights without consequences. If someone can get punished for yelling fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire then they should also be punished for infringement of my 2nd amendment rights. Not allowing people to own guns in order to protect themselves is far more dangerous than yelling fire in a crowded movie theater where there is no fire.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Well, no, the thread is a refutation of the common argument advocating censorship, that we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

You can say it....but there will be consequences.

You walk into a theatre and shout fire, cause panic, someone gets hurt, you would be punished in someway.

I get what you're saying, yes you have the ability to speak.

What I am trying to explain to you is that just because you have the ability to speak does not grant you the absolute right to say whatever you want without any kind of consequences. Do you under stand this.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

gandalf i think we went around about it before.
i dont remember

but where do you land


if something you say or do has a consequence then how can it be argued you have the freedom to do it or say it?

originally posted by: JBIZZ
I have my own right to shoot that person in the head but I don't have a right to the consequences for shooting that person in the head.

if there are consequences for doing anything then you are not free to do it

if that were the case then people in north korea have the same freedoms we do correct?

just not free of consequences?

i dont get that

a reply to: Propagandalf

You can post that video all you want but my question remains unanswered.

Just because you have the ability to speak does not grant you the absolute right to say whatever you want without any kind of consequences. Do you understand this?

originally posted by: TinySickTears
gandalf i think we went around about it before.
i dont remember

but where do you land


if something you say or do has a consequence then how can it be argued you have the freedom to do it or say it?

I'm a free speech absolutist, meaning I refuse to censor people. That's the best I can do.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Propagandalf

You can post that video all you want but my question remains unanswered.

Just because you have the ability to speak does not grant you the absolute right to say whatever you want without any kind of consequences. Do you understand this?

The video is of Christopher Hitchens yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Yes I do have the absolute right to say what I want, and any punishment I receive is the consequence of your censorship.

originally posted by: Propagandalf


I'm a free speech absolutist, meaning I refuse to censor people. That's the best I can do.

i guess.

i am not saying anyone should or should not be censored.

i just cant wrap my head around people thinking you are free to say a thing if that thing is going to get your freedoms taken away.

thats how i look at it anyway

if me saying a thing or doing a thing will cause me to have freedoms taken away or some sort of consequence then in my mind i am not free to say it

a reply to: TinySickTears

I spotted our les soon as he joined up!

Anyway moving on...

imo freedom to do anything implies that i will still be free(or free of consequence) for doing it.

This in a nutshell is basically exactly how I view it, freedom of speech implies to me that you are free to say whatever you want with out consequences and that is just not possible.

originally posted by: Propagandalf

Yes I do have the absolute right to say what I want, and any punishment I receive is the consequence of your censorship.

i kind of see where you are coming from but just cause you say it is this way that does not mean that it is

if something you say will cause you to not be free after you say it then youre not free to say it.

you know

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Propagandalf


I'm a free speech absolutist, meaning I refuse to censor people. That's the best I can do.

i guess.

i am not saying anyone should or should not be censored.

i just cant wrap my head around people thinking you are free to say a thing if that thing is going to get your freedoms taken away.

thats how i look at it anyway

if me saying a thing or doing a thing will cause me to have freedoms taken away or some sort of consequence then in my mind i am not free to say it

Look at the case in the OP. A man was convicted for distributing anti-draft pamplets. Now, was his conviction the result of his speech, or was it the result of the laws?

a reply to: Propagandalf

It's much different when a person on a stage is making a point that everyone is aware of.


I said YOU yell it while in the crowd.

You wont do it though because you know you will be arrested.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Propagandalf

It's much different when a person on a stage is making a point that everyone is aware of.


I said YOU yell it while in the crowd.

You wont do it though because you know you will be arrested.

Would you panic as soon as someone yelled fire?

a reply to: Propagandalf

Yes I do have the absolute right to say what I want, and any punishment I receive is the consequence of your censorship.

Well no you don't, because if you walk up to a 8 year old girl and start on some perverted sexual rant about what you want to do to her.... you will be punished, not as a consequence of my censorship but as a consequence of the laws of that state that you would have broken. You freedom of speech therefore is not absolute it has limits that are set by the laws of the land.