Re: Rightist indicted over Nazi slur

In <1139895755.554802.97220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Eliyahu" <lrooff@xxxxxxxxx> writes:


Steve Goldfarb wrote:
In <1139873674.673593.42130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Eliyahu" <lrooff@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

It isn't illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. It is, however,
illegal to incite a riot or, probably, cause a panic.

Not true. I think the "can't yell fire" thing is a snopes anyway, but
don't have time to look it up.

I don't recall a Supreme Court Justice named Snopes, but we did have
one named Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote in Schenck v. United States,
249 U.S. 47,

"It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom
of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent
them may have been the [p52] main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v.
Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462. We admit that, in many places and in
ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the
circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the
character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is
done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent
protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting
fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man
from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect
of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The
question in every case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When
a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are
such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured
so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected
by any constitutional right."

If you'd like, you can read the entire decision at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZO.html

And there you go - thank you. Read what he wrote -- "free speech would not
protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

There is nothing illegal about saying the word "fire." Even loudly, even
in a crowded theater. What I wrote earlier is exactly in accord with what
Justice Holmes writes here - the fact that the action was initiated by
speech doesn't accord that action any protection under the First
Amendment. Nevertheless, it is the underlying action - and not the words -
that are illegal.

Once again, there is absolutely, positively no law against saying the word
"fire" (whether shouted or otherwise) in a theater.

It IS however, (probably) illegal to intentionally cause a panic in a
theater, whether it's done with a word, or by setting off the fire alarms,
or throwing a firecracker. The act is illegal, not the speech.

Once again, there is all the difference in the world between these two
points.

--s
--

.

Relevant Pages
Loading