[SERKIT]

Note the date on this article - 2012.

In light of the discussions of the Texas cartoon competition, some pundits are equating the event - and expression of free speech - as the equivalent to "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" worthy of punishment of some kind. Either the US Government needs to intervene to stop this type of free speech, or there seems to be a push for a tacit approval for those who were insulted to proceed directly to violence in search of vindication for drawing a silly picture.

For the analogy to work, we would have to place the facts in the cartoon controversy in parallel with the fact patterns in Schenck v. United States where Oliver Wendell Holmes included the comment in the decision (which he modified slightly in a subsequent case). I don't think that works.

We are also seeing a moral equivalency between non-violent verbal disagreements and violent disagreements between the citizenry.

The Bill of Rights is wholly incompatible with Shari'a Law. Many on the left want to erode the 1st Amendment to somehow add any "insult to the prophet" as non-protected speech. Hogwash. Many statements, depictions, talk, or religious practices are seemingly an "insult" to Islam. If a cartoon is what is excluded now, then next would be the media-justified attack on US Christian churches since they are not sensitive enough to Islam. Proclaiming Jesus as your Savior becomes an insult to Islam worthy of deadly (and somehow justified) attack.

We hear stories of gang members observing two deaf people conversing in American Sign Language and interpret this as "dissing" their sacred gang signs and resorting to a violent attack on the deaf people. How different is the cartoon episode whereby a group feels "dissed" because of their religion and resorts to violence?

We cannot allow radical Islam to use the Bill of Rights against us, and we can't allow our government from watering down the Bill of Rights (via prosecutorial discretion) while failing to protect us.

[UnwashedPeasant]

If there really is a raging fire in a crowded theater, and everyone is ignoring it, then yelling “Fire” is a very good thing.

[Rockpile]

You know, when was the last time a crowded theater or even a not very croded one had a fire? Limelights are kind of old technology.

[Thumper1960]

How would the press react if upon seeing the "Piss Christ" or the Madonna smeared with feces a group of Christians massacred and bombed the offending parties?

I douubt the press would be as sympathetic.....with is quite pathetic.

[Enterprise]

"In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

Remember this case and quote it often when liberals, or FOX news types, try to say that Pam Geller was wrong.

[Jane Austen]

One is against the law and the other is not.

[BigCinBigD]

The only reason I would yell fire. Is if 100 of the animals were shackled to a brick wall.

[marsh2]

Let us call it was it is. terrorism = the use of violent acts or the threat of violent acts to frighten the people as a way of trying to achieve a political goal; The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Islam is not only a “religion.” It is a legal and social system. Many of its doctrines and laws are wholly incompatible with inalienable rights and freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of the United States. The the threat of violence and intimidation is clearly being used here to suppress individual rights of U.S. citizens. This is called terrorism.

[ctdonath2]

Crowded theaters. No actual fire, but lots of yelling about it. No problem.

[Yardstick]

Here’s the difference. When someone yells fire in a crowded theatre, it is reasonable to get up and run for the exits. But when someone draws a provocative cartoon, it is not reasonable to commit mass murder. Thus in the first case the yeller is at fault while in the second case the murderer is at fault, not the cartoonist.

The notion that we have to just accept violent reactions from Muslims as a given, like pulling on a tiger’s tail, is a total crock and puts the blame in the wrong place. Actually, what it reminds me of is how the left sees certain types of criminal behavior as the inevitable fruits of our “unjust society”. They’ll excuse the criminal and blame society instead.

This is basically the position they’ve taken towards free speech and Muslims: as historical victims of persecution by the Christian West, some Muslims may be expected to have violent reactions to our provocative speech. Thus in the cosmic sense we are at fault and must curtail our speech as a result.

[MosesKnows]

Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater Metaphor vs Texas Cartoon

The Constitution did not grant your right, the Constitution protects your rights from government interference.

However, there are consequences in law for all irresponsible use of any right.

The Constitution allows Americans to do any damn thing they wish, as long as the consequences of their actions harm neither the person or property of another.

[clearcarbon]

"Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater Metaphor vs Texas Cartoon"

How often to theater patrons get trampled when the film short shown prior to the main feature is a cartoon?