Replies

From the Article: In one of the most famous 1st Amendment cases in U.S. history, Schenck vs. United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. established that the right to free speech in the United States is not unlimited. "The most stringent protection," he wrote on behalf of a unanimous court, "would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

Facts of the Case (From Findlaw.com)
During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.

Actually the by facts of the case this was indeed free protected speech. Why? Because the first amendment is precisely about political speech; this is why John Adams gets a bad rap, the Alien and Sedition Acts were blatant violations of the Constitution, particularly the Sedition Act which made the First Amendment of no effect where it touched the politics of wars the Congress had decided to pursue. (i.e. it was exactly the same as this WWI case.)

Furthermore, despite being a socialist that published the tracts there is, aside from the urge for noncompliance, nothing remotely criminal therein. But if compliance itself was immoral, as the case he was making said, then compliance thereunto would also be immoral. (Consider the case of raw milk here in the US, people are making the claim that they can co-op a cow [basically buy shares of it] and then drink the milk the cow produces as [part] owner without regard to government regulation; the government asserts that this is incorrect and that it has the right and power to force compliance. The non-compliant party is making no violent gestures, but the government is threatening property, freedom, and even life in its assertions.)

To further add insult to this case, the item that [arguably] justified the US entry into the war was the sinking of the RMS Lusitania -- the sinking of which is rather justified [it was carrying war-supplies] and the German embassy attempted to place warning ads into US newspapers. So what we get is actually a scenario that is rather like Fast & Furious in its underhandedness.

German embassy officials attempted to place full-page ads in 50 U.S. newspapers reading:
“Notice! Travelers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies … travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain … do so at their own risk.”
Due to actions taken by the U.S. State Department, 49 of those 50 newspapers never ran the ad.
“The German government took out large ads in all the New York papers warning potential passengers that the ship was carrying munitions and telling them not to cross the Atlantic on it … Yet the sinking of the Lusitania was used by clever propagandists to portray the Germans as inhuman slaughterers of innocents. Submarine warfare was manufactured into a cause célèbre to push us into war."
Gary Allen, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”
Midday May 7th, off the coast of Ireland, the Lusitania was ordered to reduce speed, and “Juno,” its British military escort vessel, was ordered to withdraw.

-- From this site.

The "crowded theater" excuse is just that, an excuse to validate contra-constitutional laws. By making this stupid "public safety" exception we now have precedent to quell any sort of speech so long as we can tie it to "public safety," just as is happening with Islam/anti-Islamic sentiment. Indeed, how far off is it before the arguments for raw milk themselves aren't protected speech because raw milk is a danger to public safety; or sentiments against the War on Drugs, or sentiments on government corruption? (The correct ruling, of course, for falsely shouting "fire in a crowded theater" is to hold that the shouter is liable for all injury-expenses in civil court, and liable for manslaughter/murder charges in the case of deaths.)

I get pissed off at all the inconsistencies in law, especially the ones used to justify either a) further encroachment onto constitutionally guaranteed rights, or b) an objective injustice.

“’Innocence of Muslims’ doesn’t meet free-speech test”

Freedom of speech does not depend on the level of violence with which others may respond. In fact, speech that some may deem offensive is precisely why the First Amendment exists!

The whole point of the First Amendment is that other American citizens (and the government) don’t have the right to make that determination.

This is part of what “liberty” and “freedom” are — no one could possibly agree on what is “appropriate” to be said, written, or depicted in a movie — but everyone is free to speak and express their own views.

So, the L.A. Times’ “free speech test” is not applicable to me or anyone else, irrespective of whether some religious extremists are upset.