[excon]

Hello:

At some point or other, somebody (I don't know who) determined that you don't have a 1st Amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater. I guess that's because someone did it, and someone got hurt. Then someone went, hmmmmmm. Maybe there's a connection??

So, when someone yells "baby killer", and someone get's hurt, is it a legitimate question to ask if the two events are connected? If it's OK to ask, and of course it is, IS yelling baby killer on the airwaves the same thing as yelling fire in a crowded theater?

You may be surprised at my take on it, but I'll leave that till I have someone to argue with. I'm sure you'll be along...

excon

[tomder55]

The Holmes' Dictum ;which he made in the majority opinion of a terrible ruling (more on that below) ;is that you can't FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theater . If there was a fire in the Theater then the person doing the shouting would be doing a public service.

So when Frank Rich of the NY Slimes makes that comparison it really isn't valid .

Lets say the President or Nancy Pelosi gets on TV and tours the world accusing former President Bush of war crimes ,murder ,torture etc. or Keith Olberman does his daily rants about how evil Bush and Cheney are... and someone then puts one between Bush's eyes . Would it be their fault that a nutjob acted on the inflamatory rhetoric coming from them ?

I would like to point out that O.W. Holmes made this now famous line about "fire in a crowded theater " in a 1919 decision that restricted the rights of draft protesters. Holmes decided it was illegal to distribute anti-draft fliers because it posed a "clear and present danger" to the war effort.(Schenck v United States ) As is so often the case ,SCOTUS got it wrong . It was reversed in 1934( Brandenberg v Ohio). But his misquoted phrase lives on despite it's authoritarian ring when taken out of context .

As a side note ,he also supported forced sterilization in Buck v Bell. Holmes is considered one of the giants of the court but I don't see it.

[FirstChair]

Yelling "Fire" in any crowded place is protected speech, if it is justified when there is an actual fire. If there is no fire and someone yells "Fire"... it would be considered "Reckless Endangerment." When someone creates an action intentionally and knowing, when there is no such danger, causing a response from a crowd that you would have reason to assume panic will be the result and possibly injuries and death, it is reckless and dangerous.

Yelling "Baby killer" across the airwaves, what is the intent? Is it an accusation against someone who supports abortions? Is it against someone who performs abortions? Is it against a mother who allowed an abortion to be performed on her? Is it in reference to a law supporting abortions? Did someone actually kill a born live viable baby from neglect or abuse?

Neither scenario is against freedom of speech unless it is a probable cause for reckless endangerment.

We are allowed freedom while order is being enforced...

[SonofExcon]

Can you give your son a call? Its my freedom of speech

[FirstChair]

can you give your son a call? Its my freedom of speech

Oh how cute... "SonofExcon"... I wonder if he's a liberal also? ;-)