Posted on 09/18/2012 6:37:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
U.S. 1st Amendment rights distinguish between speech that is simply offensive and speech deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk.
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."
Holmes' test — that words are not protected if their nature and circumstances create a "clear and present danger" of harm — has since been tightened. But even under the more restrictive current standard, "Innocence of Muslims," the film whose video trailer indirectly led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens among others, is not, arguably, free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution and the values it enshrines.
According to initial media investigations, the clip whose most egregious lines were apparently dubbed in after it was shot, was first posted to YouTube in July by someone with the user name "Sam Bacile." The Associated Press reported tracing a cellphone number given as Bacile's to the address of a Californian of Egyptian Coptic origin named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula. Nakoula has identified himself as coordinating logistics on the production but denies being Bacile.
According to the Wall Street Journal, when the video failed to attract much attention, another Coptic Christian, known for his anti-Islamic activism, sent a link to reporters in the U.S., Egypt and elsewhere on Sept. 6. His email message promoted a Sept. 11 event by anti-Islamic pastor Terry Jones and included a link to the trailer.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
State Houses and other government buildings will be left in tact for obvious reasons.
PS, the violence is only relegated to high concentration of Islamic rule in FOREIGN lands, not in a domestic movie theater, this chick is a major why the middle-east is exploding, COIN pimp.
Very soon it will be insulting Islam is inciting riots so is not covered by the 1st Amendment. Anyone found to be insulting Islam or Muhammad will be arrested on charges of inciting a riot.
Thank you for that remark.
I am fed up with calls of foul when anyone merely hints that there is something not quite right about islam, yet they get a pass when they loudly shout about murdering non-muslims.
If you want to know who controls you, find out who you are not allowed to insult.
Truly disgusting. Free speech is not defined as speech that doesn’t anger people. It’s not a crime to exit a theater that you think is on fire. It is a crime to kill people. People are responsible for not committing their own crimes.
I thought this woman might just be a wimp or a coward. But, no, she’s some kind of Muslim sympathizer. She lives in Afghanistan. I don’t know if she’s an actual Muslim, but it’s clear whose side she’ll take in any conflict.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Chayes
She later served in the Peace Corps in Morocco, returning to Harvard to earn a master’s degree in history and Middle Eastern studies, specializing in the medieval Islamic period. She has lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan since 2002, and can speak the Pashto language.
She has lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan since 2002. Having learned to speak the Pashto language, she has helped rebuild homes, set up a dairy cooperative.
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:-- From this site.“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."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.
Gary Allen, “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”
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.
Dear Sarah Chayes,
Let me explain to you the difference between a crowded theater and a YouTube film.
1. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not an issue of insulting anyone or their beliefs. It is an issue of making someone fear for their immediate safety when there is no danger.
2. People in theaters react to the cry of “fire” with an immediate adrenalin rush and immediate action to remove themselves from danger.
3. Islamic terrorists are not in any danger, real or imagined, from a YouTube movie.
4. The actions that Islamic terrorists take after watching a YouTube they don’t like are deliberate and planned, designed to hurt others. They do not remotely resemble a flight response from danger.
Claiming equivalence would be like having someone watch a movie where someone yells fire in a theater, then have the person go home, decide they didn’t like it, then plot for a few weeks, then come back and set the theater on fire and start a stampede.
That's exactly the end-result of the "Fire!" argument; anything can be barred so long as it is detrimental, in some way, to "public safety."
I hate that USSC decision, it is horrible; it is to the bill of rights what Wicard v. Filburn is to state sovereignty.
This non-American is obviously unable to grasp the purpose of the First Amendment.
The whole reason for the First Amendment in our Constitution is precisely to protect things like this movie. The point of the First Amendment is to protect the citizen from the government, in particular to protect him when he says something the government doesn’t like.
“’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.
Thank you for the education. I’m never surprised when I’m shown how long the erosion of our rights has actually been taking place. It’s these lousy precedents that keep getting built upon that’s killing us!.
That is, in fact, it.
The closest thing I see to the “shouting fire in a theater” rule would be desecrating an American flag in the presents of veterans. But I guess because veterans expressed their outrage through civil and legal means, they weren’t taken seriously.
Now if veterans had gone into ‘rage-boy’ mode and stomped some flag desecraters to death, maybe the Supreme Court would have considered desecration of the flag a 1st Amendment violation.
You don't get what I'm saying do you? I'm saying that the "shouting fire" rule is itself a bogus piece of crap that exists only to justify restrictions contrary the constitution. I want no exceptions in the hands of the government. None.
The severe personal insult of, say, vet families being harassed by people dishonoring the flag and the soldier which results in violence ought to be relegated to the jury. The whole point of the jury is to judge both the person and the law; the jury has always had (and indeed must have) the power to judge one innocent contrary to "the letter of the law". No exception to Constitutionally guaranteed rights is needed and, in fact, the solution I presents is the exercise of one such right: the 6th amendment.
Obama and Hillary Clinton also said crap like “this film is offensive to a great religions” or some crap like that. Obama even arrested this film maker for making a movie. for that alone Obama should be impeached. that Is the act of a dictator and is tyranny. He has freedom to make a film about anything and not to have Obama’s brown shirts bring him in for questioning, and the media exposing his identity so Muslims can murder him.
Firs of all this film just says the truth about Muhammad and Islam that he was a pervert as he married a 6 year old girl and that Islam is lies. 2nd of all even if this was to slander evil Islam the film maker has freedom of speech to make a film about damn thing he wants to.
A government is so large and has so much power and guns etc compared to an individual .And stupid democrats want to increase government power and to take away our freedoms and freedom of speech which is essential to free society that is productive. Without freedom of speech you don't have freedom you don't have truth.
Islam is an evil cult of lies and should be exposed. this film maker deserves an award for his bravery but instead all liberals and Obama prosecute him and Obama even arrested this man for making a film and this is hidden by the media. democrats are trained monkeys not even human. no human could trust government to run healthcare better than the free market, no human could believe that making a film is a crime and that government has a right to tell us what to say. democrats think that making a film is the crime but don't condemn the cult of Islam and Muslims who are the ones who committed these terrorist acts against U.S. embassies and Americans . I can't believe how liberals/democrats think. I really believe there is no way to compromise with these cretins.
What this woman has written pisses me off.
Can I shoot her and get away with it?
Wouldn’t it be her fault? I’m a rabid protector of the Constitution and I’m tired of being lectured about the limits thereof - especially by media types who work in free speech.
“The medieval Islamic period.” Oh, Current Events!
Obama and Hillary Clinton also said crap like “this film is offensive to a great religion of Islam” or some crap like that. Obama even arrested this film maker for making a movie. for that alone Obama should be impeached. that Is the act of a dictator and is tyranny. He has freedom to make a film about anything and not to have Obama’s brown shirts bring him in for questioning, and the media exposing his identity so Muslims can murder him.
First of all this film just says the truth about Muhammad and Islam that he was a pervert as he married a 6 year old girl and that Islam is lies. 2nd of all even if this was to slander evil Islam the film maker has freedom of speech to make a film about ANY damn thing he wants to.
A government is so large and has so much power and guns etc compared to an individual .And stupid democrats want to increase government power and to take away our freedoms and freedom of speech which is essential to free society that is productive. Without freedom of speech you don't have freedom you don't have truth. you don't have prosperity. democrats believe that government should be all powerful , with cameras watching our every move so that they can approve what sodas we drink , what we say , what we do and how we work etc. . They want us to be slaves of government. And now with technology they can control our every move more so than ever before in history. Sure stalin was a dictator, but could he control every move that some peasant living in a remote farm did? no . but democrats now have the tech to do it and that are salivating at that possibility , with tech they can make all of us slaves as never could be done in history. I hate democrats.
Islam is an evil cult of lies and should be exposed. this film maker deserves an award for his bravery but instead all liberals and Obama prosecute him and Obama even arrested this man for making a film and this is hidden by the media. democrats are trained monkeys not even human. no human could trust government to run healthcare better than the free market, no human could believe that making a film is a crime and that government has a right to tell us what to say. democrats think that making a film is the crime but don't condemn the cult of Islam and Muslims who are the ones who committed these terrorist acts against U.S. embassies and Americans . I can't believe how liberals/democrats think. I really believe there is no way to compromise with these cretins.
That's because Christians don't behead people who insult them. Islamofacists have been known to do that.
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.