Posted on 10/05/2024 2:08:03 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Below is my column in USA Today on the most chilling moment from the Vance-Walz debate when the Democratic nominee showed why he is part of the dream ticket for the anti-free speech movement.
Here is the column:
In the vice presidential debate Tuesday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz pulled the fire alarm.
His opponent, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, cited the massive system of censorship supported by Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate.
Walz proceeded to quote the line from a 1919 case in which Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said you do not have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater.
It is the favorite mantra of the anti-free speech movement. It also is fundamentally wrong.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss the justice’s line from his opinion in Schenck v. United States. Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
‘Fire in a theater’ case supported government censorship As I discuss in the book, the line was largely lifted from a brief in an earlier free speech case. It has since become the rationale for politicians and pundits seeking to curtail free speech in America.
For example, when I testified last year before Congress against a censorship system that has been described by one federal court as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., interjected with the fire-in-a-theater question to say such censorship is needed and constitutional. In other words, the internet is now a huge crowded theater and those with opposing views are shouting fire.
(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanturley.org ...
I posted the article on turley's website because although USA Today also published it, they filed a complaint against FR alleging a copyright violation. Note that John Kerry, Walz, Reich, etc. etc. are demanding censorship.
ping
Schenck was effectively overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio,
The real question is who.
Who decides when ordinary speech is the supposed equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. (Which is itself a peculiarly distinct — rare— instance.)
Excellent question
The First Amendment specifically mentions Congress. So it should be a state/local issue.
Federal courts would rather have that power for themselves.
The USSC ruled that the 1st Amendment applies to the states due to the 14th Amendment. It was intended as a restriction on the new federal government. Most states have free speech clauses in their Constitutions.
So . . . what if there IS a fire in the theater?
The Incorporation Doctrine has been one of the biggest disasters the SCOTUS has ever done to this country.
“I’m confident it will be free and fair. I don’t know whether it will be peaceful.” President Joe Biden
My guess is, Walz thought that parroting that phrase was all he needed to do.
If the person who shouts "Fire" has a good faith belief that the theatre is on fire, he is not violating the law.
Before proving guilt in that case, a jury would have to be convinced the person who shouted was deliberately lying.
I have made the exact same point in relation to the stolen election in 2020.
Trump supporters charged with election related crimes do not have to prove that Trump won the election.
The persecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump lost the election.
The prosecution cannot do that.
Trump lost the election by 43,000 votes, spread across three states - GA, WI, and AZ.
How many ineligible voters voted in those three states?
Unknown.
How many ballots in those three states have no verifiable chain of custody?
Unknown.
Case closed.
That movie looks fire
???? Maybe the author translated something from a foreign language?
Turley included the word “falsely” in his quote. IIRC Walz did not.
So, the Bill of Rights shouldn’t apply to the States?
<>So, the Bill of Rights shouldn’t apply to the States?<>
Congressman James Madison unsuccessfully proposed to apply them to the states.
Correct you are.
Without question.
Right up there with Wickard v. Filburn.
I think I’ll go with Dolley’s main squeeze on this one!
Register to vote. Email and text your friends to register now. This is going to be the last election without everyone that you know voting in this presidential election. Be a pest.
Fight Fight Fight
Vote Vote Vote
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.