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: 7
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:45 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: 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.


Nonetheless, the Brandenburg test is the only and current standard. Anyone prosecuted under that sort of law, or any law like it, has that standard as their guidepost.




posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:48 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: 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.


Nonetheless, the Brandenburg test is the only and current standard. Anyone prosecuted under that sort of law, or any law like it, has that standard as their guidepost.


Brandenburg sets the standard for inflammatory speech which isn't the topic.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 05:53 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: 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.


Nonetheless, the Brandenburg test is the only and current standard. Anyone prosecuted under that sort of law, or any law like it, has that standard as their guidepost.


Brandenburg sets the standard for inflammatory speech which isn't the topic.


But it was the very test that overruled Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test. I mean I wrote it into the OP. It's fundamentally a part of the topic.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 06:00 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: 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.


Nonetheless, the Brandenburg test is the only and current standard. Anyone prosecuted under that sort of law, or any law like it, has that standard as their guidepost.


Brandenburg sets the standard for inflammatory speech which isn't the topic.


But it was the very test that overruled Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' "clear and present danger" test. I mean I wrote it into the OP. It's fundamentally a part of the topic.


Shouting fire was an example given, not the actual details of the case itself. (As I am sure you know).

Brandenburg decision was about inciting violence. Falsely shouting fire in a theatre is not the same.

However if you apply the same logic then there is an obvious and iminent danger, the same as in the Brandenberg decision.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
It should be illegal to hurt people feelings, and since the mere mention of Trump's name or sight of something bearing his likeness sends millions of liberals into raging convulsions or even foaming seizures, the largest class action lawsuit in human history should "deplatform" the entire Trump family into total financial ruin & societal obscurity at once. LOCK HIM UP!!!





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



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

As long as people ignore you and no one gets physically hurt you can say anything you want.


edit on 28-12-2018 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




These kind of laws are essential to the smooth and safe running of a civilised society.


Can you point out a Civilized society?



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

This is something that is easy to prove, please go to your nearest movie theatre and film yourself yelling fire in the middle of the movie and then upload the video for us.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

An excellent post. It's something I try to explain to people, but it goes by the wayside. Two points I'd like to add:

First, the full quote goes "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire"

I interpret that to mean you can't tell harmful lies, i.e. slander or libel. There are already laws against that. If there is a fire in a crowded theater I would hope someone would say something.

Second, as you pointed out, the ruling was used to justify punishing a man who was protesting the US entry into World War 1. The thing is, everything Schenck said was true, as later verified by General Smedley Butler in his book War is a Racket. Essentially, Schenck was to be punished for telling a truth the government didn't want known.

Which brings us to OtherSideOfTheCoin's point.


These kind of laws are essential to the smooth and safe running of a civilised society.


The simple fact is, the current model for government virtually everywhere in the world depends on the government lying to the people to keep them in line. We see all see this in our own governments, we complain, the governments tell more lies, and nothing changes. If three quarters of the population in any given country realized how corrupt their governments are, there wouldn't be enough yellow vests in the world for the riots.

You don't maintain a system of slavery by allowing slaves to know the truth. You tell them that what you give them is worth more than the "freedom" you allow them to have. Anyone who says different needs to be removed from that civilized society.

That, and the push to enslave all of humanity under one global plantation, is why true free speech will never be allowed. You can count on more censorship as time goes on. Anything anyone says that disrupts the smooth and safe running of a civilized plantation will be a crime, whether it's true or not.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Your problem, OP is that you are being pedantic and literal. The phrase was intended to represent a concept that says if your speech causes harm to others, you can be found liable. You can be sued. You can be charged. You can be made to pay compensation for your folly and stupidity. "Free speech" was intended to convey the idea that you cannot be prevented from expressing opposing viewpoints. And, by the way, only in a PUBLIC forum. If you are on private property, it doesn't count. Movie theaters are private property. Please don't continue to quibble your stupidity here. It's unseemly.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein

Graded on a curve, of course.



posted on Dec, 28 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Maybe a good test would be six to eight folks with fake blood squibs at something like Times Square on New Years popping them and falling down. See the wave on TV as the panic starts in middle and radiates out like falling dominos.

Of course actors would need to change tops and beat feet with the rest of the herd.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Your problem, OP is that you are being pedantic and literal. The phrase was intended to represent a concept that says if your speech causes harm to others, you can be found liable. You can be sued. You can be charged. You can be made to pay compensation for your folly and stupidity. "Free speech" was intended to convey the idea that you cannot be prevented from expressing opposing viewpoints. And, by the way, only in a PUBLIC forum. If you are on private property, it doesn't count. Movie theaters are private property. Please don't continue to quibble your stupidity here. It's unseemly.


The phrase was, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

That phrase was used to justify the censorship of a man expressing dissent, his “folly and stupidity”. He payed for it with jail time, like many others and for the same reasons. And to this day, it is used in a like manner: to justify censorship. Here you are doing the same.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Well said.



posted on Dec, 29 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
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.


Right, the punishment is a consequence of the laws, not my speech.


This is starting to sound more like anarchy, than pure freedom of speech.

ETA: I read the rest of the thread and agree to some point, for instance, saying x under different sets of laws could lead to differing outcomes. I'm not sure if that helps or hinders your overall argument, however. It merely means that freedoms vary from territory to territory.
edit on 29/12/2018 by comfortablynumb because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2018 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join