paperwork351
no error code for stupid
I've heard the "fire" analogy discussed from contract law. The buyer has certain expectations from the seller. The seller can't fulfill the reasonable expectations. Civil law. IANAL
Great post. I had a coworker give me the the same "can't yell fire" argument last week and I really didn't have a good response.
How do you respond when they ask "where do draw the line, rockets, tanks?"
I think the OP misses the point, Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is not about protected speech at all!!!
You won't be cited for illegal speech, because that's not against the law, what is against the law is causing a public disturbance.
Yelling "Fire" even in a movie theater is NOT illegal. Show me the law that states this?!?
Using speech to cause civil unrest or a public disturbance is, but why? Because just like a firearm, there is no crime until you infringe on the rights of others to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater does infringe on the rights of others in this setting to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Owning an "assault weapon", Tank, Fighter Aircraft, or even a battleship does not.
M
Great minds think alike.Dear advocates of Gun Control:
When explaining that our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, I’ve frequently heard anti’s retort that the 1st Amendment is restricted as well. They explain that you can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a movie theater.
That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 1st Amendment. The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't directly correlate with a ban on assault weapons, magazine capacity or the right to keep, carry or bear arms. Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence), but the government doesn't cut your vocal cords or put a muzzle on you before you enter a public space in order to protect the public in the off chance that you would do so. They don't BAN you from owning a voice or a particular TYPE of voice. There ARE current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, but you can’t SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT (without cause) or fire it in a public place. Just like you are allowed to have a voice, but there are restrictions on how and in what manner you can use it. Guns are already restricted in this manner.
Imagine if the government made any citizen who wished to exercise their right to free speech submit to a background check, fingerprinting and a national database before exercising that right. They would have to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Every person who wanted to exercise their right to free speech would be required to pay $100 for the their Free Speech License and another $15 per public speaking event. They would have to do this every 5 years.
In order to apply for your Free Speech license, you must be over the age of 21 (because you wouldn't be capable of using free speech or at least, wouldn't understand the ramifications of its use until you reached that age) and take an 8 hour Free Speech training course (paid for by you). Also, you would only be allowed the license if your voice registered under a certain decibel level and was of a particular dialect chosen arbitrarily by the government (because some accents are SCARY!)
Upon receipt of your Free Speech License, you would be limited on the amount of time you could speak. Only 45 seconds of constant speech would be allowed (because anything that is THAT important can be said in under 45 seconds). There would be no justification for the limit, just that it is lower than what we have now and that equates to "better." You also would have to wait 7 days after applying before you could speak (because we don't want you to say anything rash in the heat of the moment or say something you will regret later). The government has the obligation to protect you from yourself.
This law would be enacted in order to protect the public from the hateful evil abuses that some people (Westboro Baptist Church) use to harm innocents and to make sure that people aren't verbally abused or ridiculed to the point that they commit suicide (as is the case with many recent teenage suicides). Because, as Glorious Leader has said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child… then surely we have an obligation to try.”
Sounds pretty ridiculous right?
Ya, we think so too.
I also think it's interesting that in the case in which the infamous 'fire in a crowded theater' line was concocted, Schenk vs. United States, the crime the defendant was accused (and convicted) of was distributing leaflets opposing the draft during World War I. I cannot imagine any good leftie being anything less than horrified that they're defending a principle that was used to criminalize anti-war speech.
We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that, if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917, in § 4, punishes conspiracies to obstruct, as well as actual obstruction. If the act (speaking, or circulating a paper), its tendency, and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Vinnie Demarco is a liar. Massachusetts instituted "licensing" in 1997 has seen their gun murders DOUBLE since that time.
We ALL know licensing the law-abiding does not prevent criminal behavior.
Dear advocates of Gun Control:
When explaining that our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, I’ve frequently heard anti’s retort that the 1st Amendment is restricted as well. They explain that you can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a movie theater.
That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 1st Amendment. The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't directly correlate with a ban on assault weapons, magazine capacity or the right to keep, carry or bear arms. Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence), but the government doesn't cut your vocal cords or put a muzzle on you before you enter a public space in order to protect the public in the off chance that you would do so. They don't BAN you from owning a voice or a particular TYPE of voice. There ARE current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, but you can’t SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT (without cause) or fire it in a public place. Just like you are allowed to have a voice, but there are restrictions on how and in what manner you can use it. Guns are already restricted in this manner.
Imagine if the government made any citizen who wished to exercise their right to free speech submit to a background check, fingerprinting and a national database before exercising that right. They would have to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Every person who wanted to exercise their right to free speech would be required to pay $100 for the their Free Speech License and another $15 per public speaking event. They would have to do this every 5 years.
In order to apply for your Free Speech license, you must be over the age of 21 (because you wouldn't be capable of using free speech or at least, wouldn't understand the ramifications of its use until you reached that age) and take an 8 hour Free Speech training course (paid for by you). Also, you would only be allowed the license if your voice registered under a certain decibel level and was of a particular dialect chosen arbitrarily by the government (because some accents are SCARY!)
Upon receipt of your Free Speech License, you would be limited on the amount of time you could speak. Only 45 seconds of constant speech would be allowed (because anything that is THAT important can be said in under 45 seconds). There would be no justification for the limit, just that it is lower than what we have now and that equates to "better." You also would have to wait 7 days after applying before you could speak (because we don't want you to say anything rash in the heat of the moment or say something you will regret later). The government has the obligation to protect you from yourself.
This law would be enacted in order to protect the public from the hateful evil abuses that some people (Westboro Baptist Church) use to harm innocents and to make sure that people aren't verbally abused or ridiculed to the point that they commit suicide (as is the case with many recent teenage suicides). Because, as Glorious Leader has said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child… then surely we have an obligation to try.”
Sounds pretty ridiculous right?
Ya, we think so too.