It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.




posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?
edit on 28-12-2018 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

I'd yell $%^^ or whatever I feel like because I don't give a #. People act like pansies nowadays so I don't care how I act. I figgure if people can act like asses then I can act like the biggest bitch on the planet. Because, SNOWFLAKES.

edit on 28-12-2018 by ViXxeN because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ViXxeN
a reply to: Propagandalf

I'd yell $%^^ or whatever I feel like because I don't give a #. People act like pansies nowadays so I don't care how I act. I figgure if people can act like asses then I can act like the biggest bitch on the planet. Because, SNOWFLAKES.


I wouldn't advise it, personally. Manners and class go much further than rudeness. But I would not censor you.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ViXxeN
a reply to: Propagandalf

I'd yell $%^^ or whatever I feel like because I don't give a #. People act like pansies nowadays so I don't care how I act. I figgure if people can act like asses then I can act like the biggest bitch on the planet. Because, SNOWFLAKES.


I wouldn't advise it, personally. Manners and class go much further than rudeness. But I would not censor you.


I know you wouldnt, because your sane. And I admire sane people! But i've heard people that swear are the most honest people around, that should count for something right. I'd love nothing more than to swear my allegiance to my ruler.

edit on 28-12-2018 by ViXxeN because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ViXxeN

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ViXxeN
a reply to: Propagandalf

I'd yell $%^^ or whatever I feel like because I don't give a #. People act like pansies nowadays so I don't care how I act. I figgure if people can act like asses then I can act like the biggest bitch on the planet. Because, SNOWFLAKES.


I wouldn't advise it, personally. Manners and class go much further than rudeness. But I would not censor you.


I know you wouldnt, because your sane. And I admire sane people! But i've heard people that swear are the most honest people around, and that should count for something right.


There could be something to that theory.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.


I would need the law and not the definition. I'm pretty sure the first amendment overrules it, but then I'm not sure. I'd need to see the legal principle.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.


I would need the law and not the definition. I'm pretty sure the first amendment overrules it, but then I'm not sure. I'd need to see the legal principle.


Is there an example of a court overturning one of these laws on general principle? I could easily imagine specifics could fall foul of first amendment but multiple states have such laws.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.


I would need the law and not the definition. I'm pretty sure the first amendment overrules it, but then I'm not sure. I'd need to see the legal principle.


Is there an example of a court overturning one of these laws on general principle? I could easily imagine specifics could fall foul of first amendment but multiple states have such laws.


I imagine so. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Anything under it, like state laws, is subject to constitutional challenges.

But that doesn't really matter, because your so-called standard is subject to the Brandenburg test, the "immanent lawless action standard". If it doesn't pass it is unconstitutional.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.


I would need the law and not the definition. I'm pretty sure the first amendment overrules it, but then I'm not sure. I'd need to see the legal principle.


Is there an example of a court overturning one of these laws on general principle? I could easily imagine specifics could fall foul of first amendment but multiple states have such laws.


I imagine so. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Anything under it, like state laws, is subject to constitutional challenges.

But that doesn't really matter, because your so-called standard is subject to the Brandenburg test, the "immanent lawless action standard". If it doesn't pass it is unconstitutional.


I doubt Brandenberg would apply, happy to be corrected if you can provide an example.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.


I would need the law and not the definition. I'm pretty sure the first amendment overrules it, but then I'm not sure. I'd need to see the legal principle.


Is there an example of a court overturning one of these laws on general principle? I could easily imagine specifics could fall foul of first amendment but multiple states have such laws.


I imagine so. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Anything under it, like state laws, is subject to constitutional challenges.

But that doesn't really matter, because your so-called standard is subject to the Brandenburg test, the "immanent lawless action standard". If it doesn't pass it is unconstitutional.


I doubt Brandenberg would apply, happy to be corrected if you can provide an example.


CASE DISMISSED AGAINST COLUMBIA STATION MAN CHARGED WITH INDUCING PANIC FOR ONLINE COMMENTARY



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

So you agree there is a right to speak freely.

Remember, an actual right is anything you have intrinsic to yourself that does not depend on others in order for you to have it. If you were all by yourself, you could speak and say whatever. Your ability to speak does not depend on other humans at all. So it is a right.

Now things that society does to curtail that right are simply means of oppressing that right. Are there times one ought not speak, things one ought not say? Probably, but shouldn't we allow people to make their own choices instead of giving unappointed, accountable "others" the right to police us?



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Propagandalf

Only if you are an Actor on the Stage .


The standard is "immanent lawless action". In other words, any call for violence or law-breaking is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action. I'm not sure if panic is lawless action considering that panic is quite lawful.


That isn't the only standard.


True. I meant under the jurisdiction of the United States.


It isn't the only standard in the US either.


Which is the other one or ones?


There are many.

For example while opinion is protected , false statement of fact that cause harm aren't.


I'm referring to the context of a "fire in a crowded theater". I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.



Quite simple. Same point that has been made all along.

There is no protection from consequences of falsely making a claim of fact that could reasonably cause harm to others.

Nor should there be.


Is this a legal standard of some sort? If so, would you mind linking it?


definitions.uslegal.com...

As an example but could be covered under others.


I would need the law and not the definition. I'm pretty sure the first amendment overrules it, but then I'm not sure. I'd need to see the legal principle.


Is there an example of a court overturning one of these laws on general principle? I could easily imagine specifics could fall foul of first amendment but multiple states have such laws.


I imagine so. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Anything under it, like state laws, is subject to constitutional challenges.

But that doesn't really matter, because your so-called standard is subject to the Brandenburg test, the "immanent lawless action standard". If it doesn't pass it is unconstitutional.


I doubt Brandenberg would apply, happy to be corrected if you can provide an example.


CASE DISMISSED AGAINST COLUMBIA STATION MAN CHARGED WITH INDUCING PANIC FOR ONLINE COMMENTARY


Which seems a case of over aggressive prosecution. Based on a really quick reading of the background don't see how his comments could reasonably be said to induce panic.

However that was specifics of that case, not showing the principal behind the law was unconstitutional.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join