Posted on 10/27/2022 2:15:16 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is probably smarter than Emma too, doesn’t mean she was a better judge.
So no exact case (yelling fire in a theater) has come before the court but a previous opinion has indicated how that court would interpret it, and a current sitting judge has indicated how he would interpret it, but Alito is wrong and this hack writer knows better.
A fine example. If you yelled gun and knew it was a lie, you would be arrested and charged for the injuries and damage from the resulting panic. That disorderly conduct charge would stick and the first amendment would not protect you.
That is a modern update on fire in a crowded theater.
Try yelling there is a bomb on the plane because you want to get off when stuck waiting for a gate.
Emma the college girl who was an infant on 9/11 has no clue.
And how many people are sitting in the DC Gulag today because they made the mistake of saying the election was stolen? It is literally in the government argument establishing their danger to society.
A total lie from a childish short-haired college skank who nobody wants at Thanksgiving this year.
Here is what it is ACTUALLY about.
“Justice Samuel Alito said Tuesday that the unauthorized disclosure of a draft landmark Supreme Court majority opinion on abortion put some justices at risk of assassination.
Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event, Alito said the release of his draft opinion made the justices presumed to be in the majority “targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us.”
The draft from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was published by POLITICO on May 2.
“It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody,” Alito, who authored both the draft and the final majority opinion, told the Heritage Foundation’s John G. Malcolm.
Has abortion become a decisive factor in the midterms?
The draft proved substantially similar to the final majority opinion that was issued in June. That ruling overturned the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which had established a right to abortion throughout the country.
“It certainly changed the atmosphere at the court,” Alito said of the unauthorized disclosure of the draft.
Alito noted that a California man was subsequently charged in an alleged plot to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was one of the justices in the majority.”
“Legal, yes.”
No, if it was done deliberately to cause a panic, and people get injured, you can easily be charged with disorderly conduct.
Another example, think you can call in a bomb threat and say it was free speech? You are in the hook for a lot more than money.
On the other hand if there is a serious fire, speaking truth even if it has dangerous consequences should be protected speech IMO. Should a person who sees a fire keep silent, thus delaying the warning that could save many lives? That would be insane, but would be a consequence of lawsuits punishing people for telling the truth in such situations.
Not only is the author & article wrong, the article is “Libel Per Se”...and ironically, that makes the article not protected by 1A.
I have often argued, that the listeners bare more responsibility than the yeller does. Speech is not an excuse for misbehaving and all speech must be protected... and not so niggardly.
I see what you did there.
The whole thing is an academic “gotcha”. This is what happens when liberal elitists gather to discuss conservative or constructionist constitutional views.
First you say it’s legal to yell it then you say there are consequences. That seems to be contradictory because if something were legal there would be no legal consequences.
But to the point, this article has a non lawyer Emma camp a philosophy major lecturing us on constitutional law. Gee, for those of us with law degrees this is pretty funny stuff. Schermer ought to vet his writers a little more carefully. Some moron saying a Supreme Court justice doesn’t know the law is pretty vile.
And by the way, Alito is perfectly correct.
Well I am no lawyer but I understand it to be legal, except in certain circumstances where you know it is reckless to do so. Or as Chick Hearn would say “no harm, no foul”.
So if you knew there actually was a fire and stayed silent?
This article is a pendant’s dream. The concept of not being able to shout fire in a crowded theater obviously includes some additional context. Taking it literally and removing all that context just to prove how smart you are is both tiresome and transparent.
I think Good Samaritan laws have always been struck down.
The late Yippie Abbie Hoffman wrote freedom of speech would be assured “If I can yell ‘theater’ in a crowded fire.”
But what if there IS A FIRE in the theater?
The Two Orphans or The Brooklyn Theater fire comes to mind.
The problem is that yelling fire, true or not, can cause people to Be injured attempting to escape. So in reality always doing this is by definition reckless.
All you have to see is the hundreds of people killed in foreign countries attempting to escape stadiums, night clubs, and the like at the first sign of a disaster, real or not.
Again, not a lawyer but I still see it as problematic. Can you whisper fire? Can you speak fire in a normal tone? If you say nothing but see a fire and run? All these could cause a stampede.
As an aside... it’s why I personally tend to avoid concerts, movie theaters, parades etc much to the dismay of the missus. People are rational. Crowds are not.
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.