Posted on 05/09/2015 10:28:39 AM PDT by SERKIT
Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.
Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
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.
If there really is a raging fire in a crowded theater, and everyone is ignoring it, then yelling “Fire” is a very good thing.
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.
Beat me to it!
Not very crowded————wouldn’t “a crowded nightclub” be a better analogy? Or maybe a “crowded concert”.?
I douubt the press would be as sympathetic.....with is quite pathetic.
You can bet that when our News Cartel slavemaster betters met on Monday morning after Garland there was weeping and moaning over two quickly snuffed jihadis and no goodguy deaths.
(I mean when they conspire together to rig the news for the upcoming week).
Remember this case and quote it often when liberals, or FOX news types, try to say that Pam Geller was wrong.
One is against the law and the other is not.
Let’s just call them snuffy 1 and snuffy 2.
The only reason I would yell fire. Is if 100 of the animals were shackled to a brick wall.
Add my vote!!!
You are very correct and have apparently bought in to the traditional misquoting of Holmes' statement. Read it again....emphasis added.....
"falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater"
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.
Yes, you do have the right to yell “fire’’ in a crowed theater. But be prepared for the consequences of your speech. This is the essence of free speech that seems to be getting lost in all the shouting.
SPOON?
Uh no...you yell FIRE and get everyone out.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.