Shouting FIRE in a crowded Theatre - FREE SPEECH

CaseHardened

CaseHardened

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
10,677
Reaction score
10,649
Location
Danvers, MA
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is your typical, supposed rationale, why Free Speech is not absolute.

REALLY ?

Is shouting fire a genuine threat ? Name one time in the past century, this has occurred, to a bad end.

Instead, I propose FREE SPEECH = FREE SPEECH.

Kathy Griffith should be allowed to illustrate an assassination of President Trump. In fact, she did so, with no legal consequence.

Kathy-Griffin-Trump-Beheaded-2.jpg


I suggest that FREE SPEECH means you can suggest ANYTHING.
 
Last edited:
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,152
Reaction score
54,359
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
CaseHardened said:
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is your typical, supposed rationale, why Free Speech is not absolute.

REALLY ?

Is shouting fire a genuine threat ? Name one time in the past century, this has occurred, to a bad end.

Instead, I propose FREE SPEECH = FREE SPEECH.

Kathy Griffith should be allowed to illustrate an assassination of President Trump. In fact, she did so, with no legal consequence.

Kathy-Griffin-Trump-Beheaded-2.jpg


I suggest that FREE SPEECH means you can suggest ANYTHING.
Click to expand...
The "shouting fire" thing is used very often, and almost never correctly.

What's illegal there is inciting the panic, not the speech.

Anyone who wants to counter that statement would do well to read up on the legal concept of "prior restraint".

It says you can't stop someone from yelling "fire" because it *might* incite a panic, you can only prosecute them after it does.

That's why they can't gag you before you enter just in case you might yell "fire".

It's also (another reason) why 90% of the gun laws are BS. They are all in place to prevent you from breaking other laws. "No murder" is the only gun law that the constitution will abide
 
CaseHardened

CaseHardened

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
10,677
Reaction score
10,649
Location
Danvers, MA
The public watches too much TV - FICTION. Where the villian describes his plan, and motives in detail.

Did the Japanese tell the world they were going to bomb Pearl Harbor ?

Did John Wilkes Booth mail Lincoln a letter ?

Did Earl Harvey Oswald give JFK a phone call ?

IT'S ALL BS !

A committed villian is not going to call in a Bomb Threat, nor give advance notice of any crime.

"Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but Words will never hurt me"
 
meketrefe

meketrefe

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,807
Reaction score
16,327
Location
Dexter, ME
spat said:
The "shouting fire" thing is used very often, and almost never correctly.

What's illegal there is inciting the panic, not the speech.

Anyone who wants to counter that statement would do well to read up on the legal concept of "prior restraint".

It says you can't stop someone from yelling "fire" because it *might* incite a panic, you can only prosecute them after it does.

That's why they can't gag you before you enter just in case you might yell "fire".

It's also (another reason) why 90% of the gun laws are BS. They are all in place to prevent you from breaking other laws. "No murder" is the only gun law that the constitution will abide
Click to expand...

I agree but still the burden is on the acuser to demonstrate thar what was said was meant to be said and that what was meant ,was meant with true evil intent. Otherwise this could be rather aebitrary and even discriminative against people like senior folks and people with Tourettes, ADD folks, .... among others.

Cannot even construct a clear idea of what all hate speech is w/o being able to discuss certain unpleasant subjects in an attempt to agree what the scope of hate speech is..
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,152
Reaction score
54,359
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
meketrefe said:
I agree but still the burden is on the acuser to demonstrate thar what was said was meant to be said and that what was meant ,was meant with true evil intent. Otherwise this could be rather aebitrary and even discriminative against people like senior folks and people with Tourettes, ADD folks, .... among others.

Cannot even construct a clear idea of what all hate speech is w/o being able to discuss certain unpleasant subjects in an attempt to agree what the scope of hate speech is..
Click to expand...
Before you even get to that, if there was no panic or riot or whatever, that should be enough proof to get the whole thing thrown out.

So, first the accuser needs to demonstrate the harm, *then* they need to prove that the accused's statements were the immediate cause of that harm.

Anything less is Soviet style "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" territory.
 
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,222
Reaction score
15,318
Location
WNY
THIS FORUM IS ON FIRE!!!

Anyways....
As far as im concerned, ALL speech should be protected.....even a call to action. But im a different kind of person, I dont scare easy.
I dont care if a politician screams, "kill all Trump supporters!!" during a speech.....ill be ok.
But I do understand there has to be a limit.
I would never be driven to commit an act because someone tells me to.
But I know there are weak minded people who are easily lead who may cause violence because someone told them to.
Limiting speech is a slippery slope.....but so it not limiting speech.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,180
Reaction score
18,843
Location
Province of Westchester
Criticalt said:
THIS FORUM IS ON FIRE!!!

Anyways....
As far as im concerned, ALL speech should be protected.....
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY!

Even "hate speech" is protected speech. After all, the government is not empowered to determine what sort of speech is acceptable as long as it is not illegal. We all know that threats of credible violence are not free speech...they're outright threats. But, shouting obnoxious, insensitive, "hurtful" phrases should not be censored or illegal. After all, the appropriate response in that circumstance is to leave, stop listening, or verbally respond as you see fit. As long as you don't come to blows, so be it. The government has no role in the interaction.

We all know that if we allow this insanity to continue, at some point, the government will deem whatever we constitutionalists say as "hate speech."
 
GOPerfect

GOPerfect

.700 Nitro Express
LEO / LEA
Messages
28,613
Reaction score
64,132
Location
No longer Secret, thanks DR. Evil
Let us say for arguments sake, that I have a friend.

This friend was working a local event. He works for a department and was in uniform.

As my friend was doing his job, a couple of black guys came walking towards him. Behind the two blacks guys there was a White fellow with a nasty mouth. Was yelling all kinds of words and phrases. The words and phrases were directed at the two black gentlemen. As the White guy walked past my friend, he said something along the lines, "and you can't do shit about it", referring to the words he chose to spew...

My friend said, you are correct, but, my friend said "your words have consequence". At that point one of the two black dudes turned around and punched the white dude hard, hard enough to hit the ground even harder. My friend asked if the two gentlemen remembered where they had parked the car, in a bit of uncertainty, they said yes. My friend suggested they get to their car and leave. They did, my friend reminded the white guy on the ground of consequences....

Sure yell fire all you want....
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,691
Reaction score
36,535
Location
Livingston
you know this guy too lol .. i see no assault here .. just a lesson being learned ..

really the twisted tea smack down is age restricted .. how are dumb fucks going to learn .. finally found one lol


 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,180
Reaction score
18,843
Location
Province of Westchester
GOPerfect said:
Let us say for arguments sake, that I have a friend.

This friend was working a local event. He works for a department and was in uniform.

As my friend was doing his job, a couple of black guys came walking towards him. Behind the two blacks guys there was a White fellow with a nasty mouth. Was yelling all kinds of words and phrases. The words and phrases were directed at the two black gentlemen. As the White guy walked past my friend, he said something along the lines, "and you can't do shit about it", referring to the words he chose to spew...

My friend said, you are correct, but, my friend said "your words have consequence". At that point one of the two black dudes turned around and punched the white dude hard, hard enough to hit the ground even harder. My friend asked if the two gentlemen remembered where they had parked the car, in a bit of uncertainty, they said yes. My friend suggested they get to their car and leave. They did, my friend reminded the white guy on the ground of consequences....

Sure yell fire all you want....
Click to expand...
Your story confirms that some police will condone physical violence against a citizen expressing speech with which the officer disagrees.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,180
Reaction score
18,843
Location
Province of Westchester
Acer-m14 said:
you know this guy too lol .. i see no assault here .. just a lesson being learned ..

really the twisted tea smack down is age restricted .. how are dumb fucks going to learn .. finally found one lol


Click to expand...
Damn, what an annoying sound track and editing job. Utterly unwatchable.
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
8,631
Location
NY, USA
Well...

The limits imposed in the Constitution is supposedly directed at the government, not the citizen!!! It instructs the govt to recognize certain inalienable rights citizens are endowed with by the creator, not bestowed upon by Gov't!

If anything, today... We see the contemporary bastardization of this premise and the ultimate inversion whereas the govt acts without restrictions and the citizen must seek permission!!!

In addition, the govt effectuates policy and program by the artificial promulgation via the use of corporate extensions of it's desire/policies and more, by use of, FB, Twitter, Google, etc. being outside the supposed govt doing it's bidding.

Could you imagine the outcry should an election in a hotly contested foreign land have Google shutting down dissidents voices, and Twitter or FB banning them, closing down shop... Oh wait, that's right, they do it there because the govt tells them. Well, same thing happened here, except it was only a component of govt that had them do it, being one side, that aligned with the companies political ideology. Make no mistake, these media Giants are not neutral, and nobody ever said they were!

So back to the Constitution... And even selecting the argument of yelling ANY alarming words in a crowd, whether it be in a theatre or not...

The very first Amendment that the framers if the Constitution though to put in place, was the recognition that the GOVERNMENT shall NOT institute laws that limit religion, speech whether it be individual or collective (Press), assembly or to protest the Gov't itself!

The very next amendment, specifically and for the only instance in the amendments, directly noted an activity SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... The "RIGHT" to keep and bear ARMS!

The Constitution really doesn't dwell into the individual/person until the 5th amendment... And it is still a directive to govt behavior!

So we are led back to an artificial litmus instituted by the legalese that followed the writing of the document that forms the experiment that is our form of Gov't... The application of "SCRUTINY" to these so called "RIGHTS"... And amazingly, different levels of scrutiny to different Amendments! This done by a so called isolated branch of Gov't, the Judicial, but really as exhibited too much lately, is complicit in the overall, rather than being isolated and separate!

So until "SCRUTINY" is applied in a manner that protects the individual, from the ravages of Gov't, we will always be at and to a "lessor" degree, or status than the govt itself. When constant rulings protect the Gov't and it's actions in clear violation of those Rights, the problem will only cause more dissatisfaction, disenfranchisement to simmer.

In any event... In response to the Title and OP... There is nothing FREE here in the U.S. anymore! You must fight for every inch of freedom, every moment of happiness, nothing is given, nothing assumed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top