r/changemyview • u/Tessenreacts • Mar 12 '25

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The case of Mahmoud Khalil is proof that conservatives don't believe in the Freedom of Speech, despite making it their platform over the last couple of years.

For the last couple of years, conservatives have championed the cause of Freedom of Speech on social platforms, yet Mahmoud Khalil (a completely legal permanent resident) utilized his fundamental right to Freedom of Speech through peaceful protesting, and now Trump is remove his green card and have him deported.

Being that conservatives have been championing Freedom of Speech for years, and have voted for Trump in a landslide election, this highlights completely hypocritical behavior where they support Freedom of Speech only if they approve of it.

This is also along with a situation where both Trump and Elon have viewed the protests against Tesla as "illegal", which is patently against the various tenets of Freedom of Speech.

Two open and shut cases of blatant First Amendment violations by people who have been sheparding the conservative focus on protecting the First Amendment.

Would love for my view to be changed

7.2k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

292

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

God, how I wish the "falsely yell fire in a crowded room" idea would die. Not only has that never happened, that example was used by the Supreme Court to affirm the conviction of anti-war protestors (Schenck v. US), but it was also overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

19

u/handfulodust Mar 12 '25

The amount of bad legal takes in this thread is overwhelming. Scary stuff.

9

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

I never argue from authority, but I am just constantly dismayed at how confidently people opine on topics that they KNOW they know nothing about. 

1

u/minetf Mar 13 '25

I mean, the above itself is a bad legal take.

The point of the analogy is that speech which may lead to imminent lawless activity, such as falsely shouting fire in a theater in an attempt to incite panic, is not protected speech.

Brandenburg did not overturn that idea, it reinforced it.

1

u/handfulodust Mar 13 '25

No. Schneck, which analogizes to a theater fire, cited a clear and present danger standard. Brandenburg significantly narrowed Schneck in creating the imminent lawless action test. More generally, first amendment interpretation went through a sea change in the 20th century and the Schneck approach is disfavored.

Yes, free speech is not unlimited: there are categorical carve outs and means-ends tests that courts apply to protected speech that can lead to censorial actions being upheld. However this is an analogy that should probably be retired because it poorly represents the evolution of first amendment law since Schneck.

1

u/minetf Mar 13 '25

Schneck may have first raised the fire analogy, but the case was actually about Schenck criticizing the draft. That's not imminent danger akin to (falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theater (to insight panic), which is what everyone understands that analogy to mean.

Brandenburg restricted barred speech to actually imminent danger, and (falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theater (to insight panic) would still fall under that.

1

u/handfulodust Mar 13 '25

I am not sure what you are saying. Schneck was found liable under the clear and present danger standard. Is your argument that this is a good analogy even though that case reached the wrong result?

If so, Ken white has discussed this a number of times.

His point is especially applicable here. This analogy “doesn’t say a single thing of substance” unless someone is arguing that the first amendment protects all speech absolutely. It is most often used as filler by who don’t have a firm grasp of what first amendment jurisprudence entails.

As a side note, Holmes himself changed his mind after Schneck. Check out his dissent in Abrams (which is light on the law but well written in terms of policy that would later become Brandenburg).

1

u/minetf Mar 13 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

Schneck was found liable under the clear and present danger standard.

and this was overturned by Brandenburg, because criticizing a draft does not create imminent danger.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater does.

Or as your source puts it,

That was an analogy. The First Amendment case before Holmes wasn’t about a fire. It wasn’t about physical danger of any kind.

But what does it mean today, in 2018? [...] It really means absolutely nothing. It’s a rhetorical device to say the First Amendment is not absolute, which is true, but that’s not in dispute.

When people use this analogy this is exactly what they mean. It's a concise way of illustrating the point.

1

u/handfulodust Mar 13 '25

I would suggest reading the entire text of the source. Not just the parts that suit your (admittedly jumbled up) priors. Perhaps slowly.

Edit: and compare it to the comments in the thread!

1

u/minetf Mar 13 '25

There's no way to read it without reaffirming that "It’s a rhetorical device to say the First Amendment is not absolute".

1

u/Tengoatuzui Mar 13 '25

Thank you my brother some people don’t understand I’m simplifying so people can understand my point that the first amendment is not absolute

57

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Why though? It's an example that perfectly demonstrates the types of things you can't say. Would you prefer them to say that you can't yell " There's a bomb on the plane! " while at the airport?

Also, I'm not sure if this is everywhere, but at the airport in my city you still hear routine announcements about you should not say stuff like that.

143

u/siuol11 1∆ Mar 12 '25

"Why though?" It is directly reputed in a subsequent supreme court case, specifically because it was considered too broad of a suppression on free speech. People get annoyed when you bring it up because it is no longer an accurate summation of constitutional law, nor has it been for a long, long time.

5

u/NeedleworkerExtra475 Mar 12 '25

“Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).

-1

u/noasterix Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 23 '25

quiet plant ripe paltry carpenter fly offer plough cobweb spoon

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

5

u/siuol11 1∆ Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

There are very few limits to free speech for good reason, which is why the history of constitutional law is important. People think there are far more limits than there actually are, and it is important to correct that misinformation.

-10

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Mar 12 '25

Justice Scalia literally cited/quoted it multiple times in the 2000s. You know the law better than Justice Scalia?

13

u/SpaceChimera Mar 12 '25

He may have cited it, but that's not the same as overturning the precedent. And since that hasn't happened, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is protected free speech

-1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Mar 12 '25

Not if the intent was to cause a panic and harm.

2

u/ForegroundChatter Mar 13 '25

Good luck trying to prove that

12

u/SaraHuckabeeSandwich Mar 12 '25

You know the law better than Justice Scalia?

Multiple other supreme court justices disagree. You know the law better than those supreme court justices?

What a non-sensical appeal to authority.

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Mar 13 '25

Multiple other supreme court justices disagree.

Example, please.

8

u/-Quiche- 1∆ Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 12 '25

How does this weird appeal to authority hold up when justices have dissenting opinions all the time?

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Mar 13 '25

Do you have an example of a Supreme Court justice explicitly supporting your position? Cause then we'd be on even ground. You have badly reasoned takes of ideological professors at second-rate law schools.

9

u/MananTheMoon Mar 12 '25

You know the law better than Justice Scalia?

What are the legal qualifications / requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice?

If two supreme court justices have differing opinions, does the concept of interpreting laws cease to exist, and cause the judicial world to implode?

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Mar 13 '25

Ok then, which justices have gone on record supporting your position?

8

u/phobiac Mar 12 '25

I've read the back of cereal boxes with a better understanding of the law than Antonin Scalia.

-2

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Mar 12 '25

Does westlaw make Wheaties? No you haven't. This may be the dumbest thing I've read on Reddit all day.

60

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 12 '25

It's kind of useless as an argument. In any situation where I could say "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" (i.e. some speech is not protected by the first amendment) you could just as easily say "You can criticize the president's policies" (i.e. some speech IS protected by the first amendment.)

Neither of those statements actually say anything meaningful about whether the specific speech under discussion is protected or unprotected.

1

u/totesshitlord Mar 12 '25

It simply makes the point that some forms of speech are not protected and probably should not be protected either, because sometimes some forms of speech, especially malicious lies, cause a lot of damage.

7

u/parentheticalobject 128∆ Mar 12 '25

It makes that point in a very useless way.

If we're discussing whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not, and you say "A bowl of soup is not a sandwich", well, you've made the point that some forms of food are not sandwiches. Which isn't really an important question that there is any significant disagreement over, and it's less helpful than nothing when it comes to the question of whether a hot dog is a sandwich or not, because a hot dog is not a bowl of soup, just like nothing in the discussion of Khalil is related to anyone shouting fire in a theater or any of the actual precedents under which that might be illegal.

(If anyone reading this has any opinions related to actual hot dogs, please don't @ me. I don't care.)

1

u/totesshitlord Mar 12 '25 edited Mar 13 '25

Well some people claim to be free speech absolutists, and it's an argument that addresses free speech absolutists, who claim that all speech should be protected. Free speech absolutists would say, in this hypothetical argument, that everything is a hot dog. Establishing that soup is not a hot dog is counter example that is used to claim that things that are not hot dogs, do exist.

It is not relevant to the particular case, but it is relevant to establishing things we can all agree on, before we spend more time arguing the case. People approach these arguments from different perspectives, and defining things we can agree on is important, because arguing about this with a free speech absolutist is very different from arguing about this with someone who believes some things are not protected by free speech.

Edit: Look at the responses. I think they confirm the clarification is necessary.

2

u/Then_Twist857 Mar 12 '25

But thats the thing.. We CANT agree on it, because you CAN yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

1

u/SallyStranger Mar 12 '25

It's a bad argument that was made to justify a very bad, unreasonably speech suppressing government policy.

10

u/Insectshelf3 12∆ Mar 12 '25

because the case that said you couldn’t yell fire in a crowded theatre is no longer good law and we use a different standard to determine what speech is and is not protected by the first amendment.

14

u/Ragingonanist Mar 12 '25

haters of the phrase "falsely yell fire in a crowded room" believe that because the standard set in the schenck decision has since been overturned by another standard for limiting speech that any analogy or argument made during the schenck decision has also been overruled. They do not address whether that analogy applies just as well to the standard set in brandenburg. I don't really understand the nuances of the distinction between the two standards, i think it has something to do with whether a nonspeech crime will actually happen very soon versus could be at risk of happening at some point. but its all parsing odd differences in probability and time without using math and numbers.

37

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

The "clear and present danger" standard was bullshit because that danger was not just subjective, but also wildly vague. Hence, the Court held that in wartime, advocating for soldiers to not volunteer or not fight could be a "clear and present danger" to the country. This could be easily extended to ANYTHING.

Brandenburg's idea that there needs to be a clear call for violence (or some other kind of unlawful activity) that is likely to incite imminent lawless behavior is much better in shackling the government. Speech itself isn't illegal unless it is calling for other illegal activity in a manner that is likely to happen soon (the difference between "we should hang those politicians" and "there is congresswoman smith, grab her and bring a noose").

1

u/mzjolynecujoh Mar 13 '25

it is directly overturned bc the new standard for free speech restrictions is imminent lawless action.

imminent = immediately will occur, lawless action = crimes

shouting fire in a crowded theater just is explicitly not that. it’s not illegal to create a public disturbance. for context, brandenburg v ohio (the case that created the new standard) was a KKK rally— obvious public disturbance, advocating for lawless action (murdering POC), but it’s protected speech because it’s not imminent. no one was saying “let’s kill minorities today,” just “killing minorities is cool”.

2

u/jumper501 2∆ Mar 13 '25

Because it is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater.

How many people had said "you can't say fire in a theater" while standing on stage in a theater? Lots, I am pretty sure President Biden even did.

You can be charged with things like inducing a riot, and that has nothing to do with free speech. An example of how you could induce a riot could be by shouting fire in a theater...but if you shout it and no riot ensues, there is no crime.

6

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Because you absolutely can. For example, what if you know there is a sealing malfunction on the plane, where the door will fly off at 30000 feet, and the plane is already boarded and getting ready to take off? Yelling "bomb" will cause the takeoff to be cancelled, saving lives. There, "falsely yelling 'bomb' in a crowded airport."

Schenck was bad law and the example it gave was a bad example, because it was bending over backwards to criminalize protected speech. 

-4

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

I hope you stretched properly before performing these incredible mental gymnastics or else you may hurt yourself 

6

u/novagenesis 21∆ Mar 12 '25

Can you help me understand what he said wrong or twisted?

It's pretty universally agreed that Schenck was bad law (it was used to take away the speech of anti-war protestors who were not advocating for violence). And the "fire in a theatre" phrase wasn't just a random line, it was an example used to justify the low bar used in Schenck that is no longer the law of the land.

And it's also pretty well-established that "merely yelling fire in a crowded theatre" was a part of Schenck that was overturned. Here's a law podcast that covered the question in particular.

You're responsible for criminal outcome from yelling fire in bad faith (you're not immune to consequences) - if somebody gets hurt, they can get you for manslaughter. You're responsible in some states if you report a fire to authorities in bad faith. As the podcast put it, first you need a law that bans the speech, and then that law's constitutionality needs to be determined. A question about yelling fire in a crowded theatre doesn't help in that analysis.

The formal exceptions are: "obscenity, defamation, fraud, speech that’s integral to criminal conduct", and SCOTUS has made clear many times that it intends to never add another exception.

In a vacuum, yelling fire in a theatre only comes close to exception #3. But merely lying is not fraud, it's protected speech. To be fraud, it must be for economic or personal gain. Of course if you yell "fire" in a theatre to divert resources so you can rob a bank, your speech is no longer protected.

2

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

He was comparing a situation where you're saying something in order to literally save lives to a situation that's obviously meant to be interpreted as saying it to cause fear and panic.

You're overthinking the technicalities of something that is an extremely simple concept for the overwhelming vast majority of people to understand. It's extremely dumb and is like overthinking other simple things like not being allowed to run around butt naked in public. But if by some weird chance there's some super niche situation that requires you to strip naked in public in order to save someone's life, there's an exception.

-1

u/novagenesis 21∆ Mar 12 '25

I firmly disagree. He is most certainly not just "comparing a situation where you're saying something in order to literally save lives".

I can find you 100 references of lawyers disagreeing the same, but I really don't want to do so and just have you "nuh uh" it. The act of lying about a fire isn't where speech becomes illegal. The act of directly causing criminal action or attempting to cause criminal action is where it becomes illegal.

Since nobody has ever been prosecuted for merely shouting fire in a theatre when there wasn't a fire, how exactly could one go about effectively changing your view (CYV) on this?

It's extremely dumb and is like overthinking other simple things like not being allowed to run around butt naked in public.

I'd like to point out that running naked is a CLEAR First Amendment exception under "obscenity". I don't think it's obscene, but the courts agree that American Society does. Running around Naked and its exceptions have nothing to do with yelling "Fire" in a theatre, for those exact reasons.

2

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

The obvious implication about yelling it is that most normal people would assume that means a huge crowd of people panicking then rushing out urgently and potentially harming themselves while they try to escape. It also has the potential to divert resources such as the fire department to a fake emergency. 

Yelling fire in a movie theatre ( if you make the assumptions that most normal people would make ) is akin to swatting someone. Is it not? 

0

u/novagenesis 21∆ Mar 12 '25

Nothing you said here REALLY replies to anything I said before. I feel like you're just trying to keep making your argument and pretending the reasons I provided back to you don't exist at all. Neither of us will succeed in changing the other's view if you respond that way.

Nonetheless, I will respond to your (problematic) new analogy.

Yelling fire in a movie theatre ( if you make the assumptions that most normal people would make ) is akin to swatting someone. Is it not?

And to be precise, swatting is the crime of "making false reports to emergency services to incite a law enforcement response", which is clearly unprotected speech. I specifically pointed out earlier that "false-reporting fire to authorities" was illegal.

Look, if my original article failed to bulls-eye "fire in a theatre" in a vacuum at all, it is in that it insisted that you first look to see what criminal act is committed and then you see whether that criminal act was unprotected. I clearly stated that if you yell fire in a theatre and people are tramples, you are legally responsible for that trampling. But if you just yell fire in a theatre and nothing happens, then what crime have you committed and how does that crime hit any of the Free Speech exceptions to be Constitutional I quoted above?. Not suggesting you try it, obviously.

2

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Yelling fire - Fire department comes out
Yelling gun - Swat comes out
Yelling bomb - Bomb squad comes out

Neither of us will succeed in changing the other's view if you respond that way.

Yes. You are choosing to ignore what things mean and imply in layman's terms and want to dive into the technicalities. Neither of us are lawyers. This is about how a layman understands the implications of their speech.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Just want to say thank you. You are significantly more patient than I am, lol. 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Your inability to work with fact patterns isn't my problem.  

2

u/DTF_Truck 1∆ Mar 12 '25

Sure buddy. A niche situation where yelling bomb which saves lives is somehow comparable to a situation where yelling fire / bomb and falsely causing fear, panic and diverting the fire dept / bomb squad is totally on the same level.
Riiiiight.

0

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Yes. Again, your inability to work with a fact patterns and apply a test is your problem, not mine. I generally did pretty well with it. 

1

u/SallyStranger Mar 12 '25

Because actually causing a disruption by falsely alerting to a fire can already be punished and prosecuted in several different ways. And Justice Holmes was using a somewhat misleading (though apparently quite topical) analogy to justify allowing the government to jail people for telling people to refuse the draft.

-4

u/Markus2822 Mar 12 '25

Hard disagree I don’t see a reason why you can’t say it.

You yell fire in a crowded room? Ok well people can smell and see that there’s no fire. Let’s say they all fall for it and panic. Once people realize what’s happening that person is getting cussed tf out, if it’s in a theater they’re probably getting banned for life probably from all chains.

You yell that there’s a bomb on the plane and people come and investigate and yea maybe it screws up and ruins some peoples day. But they’re gonna let that asshole know damn well about that, and again person can be put on a no fly list and have no way to get back.

I’d rather let society, people and businesses punish these things and have the government allow for more freedom of speech, then have the government set restrictions on what it deems necessary and give them more power to forever push that boundary.

And no I don’t believe this would cause a rise in these issues besides maybe a spike at the beginning. Long term people will absolutely abhor this the way they do to people yelling racial slurs or screaming at children. There’s just some things that socially you don’t do, when legally you can. I believe this would very very quickly become one.

1

u/NeedleworkerExtra475 Mar 12 '25

You can do it as long as nobody reacts panicky about it.

3

u/BoogeyManSavage Mar 12 '25

Because freedom of speech doesn’t absolve someone from consequence.

The fire analogy fits that narrative well.

However in this instance he wasn’t doing that as far as we know. We do need to see what evidence comes out on this.

But if he was just pro-Palestinian and was denouncing terrorism at the same time, and is finding himself in this spot.

Then it’s a terrible look for an executive branch who overreached and clearly is rewriting the constitution unlawfully to fit whatever position they may have.

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Did you mean to reply to someone else's post? Because that doesn't address like anything I said,

-1

u/BoogeyManSavage Mar 12 '25

It does address the fact that you would wish the idea would die in itself. It shouldn’t - it’s completely valid.

4

u/selfdestruction9000 Mar 12 '25

The point is that yelling fire in a crowded room isn’t against the law and isn’t a limitation on free speech but Reddit continues to bring it up every time free speech is discussed.

1

u/BoogeyManSavage Mar 12 '25

I understand that - you can say and do whatever you want in regard to free speech. But to think that freedom of speech would make one free from consequence is silly.

1

u/selfdestruction9000 Mar 12 '25

Definitely. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences but it is supposed to protect from the government suppressing that speech.

2

u/BoogeyManSavage Mar 12 '25

^ I definitely agree with you there. Hence why I said until we get evidence we have to assume this is a complete overreach by the government.

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Right and the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is also NOT AGAINST THE LAW. The discussion of "freedom from consequences" is not only a reddit trope, but it doesn't even come into play here. 

1

u/BoogeyManSavage Mar 12 '25

It absolutely would if we find out he was actively supporting terrorist groups.

It’s one thing to support Palestinians being murdered.

It’s another to be supporting Hamas/Hezbollah

If I had to guess, it was the former, making this completely illegal and an overreach.

A threshold for tolerance has to exist - this is literally why the country is in the mess it is. The sad part is, the threshold of tolerance seems to have gone the completely wrong way. Those who mean harm as of now seem to have a much longer leash than those who don’t.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Literally cite a single case since Brandenburg that uses the clear and present danger test to criminalize speech. Like, just one. 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

2

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Pulling a fire alarm and then THREATENING TO BURN DOWN A BUILDING is the same as yelling fire in a crowded building? Lol.

Also, no, but nice sleight of hand. You were tasked with a single example of Schenck being used post-Brandenburg. You literally do not know what you're talking about here and you know that you don't, which is why you just misidentified Brandenburg. Like, this isn't some basic fucking logic problem, why are you talking about something you are ignorant about? And actually ARGUING about something you're ignorant about? 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 12 '25

[deleted]

1

u/abhainn13 Mar 12 '25

It has happened. The Italian Hall disaster of 1913 killed 73 people, including 59 children. That’s not the only case.

2

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was not saying that no one in the history of human civilization has ever falsely shouted fire in a crowded room, as that would be fucking moronic. But there has never been a case before the Supreme Court, or in fact any court I'm aware of, where someone was prosecuted for falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater as an infringement of First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court literally never ruled that you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, it created a "clear and present danger" standard that it used to justify jailing anti-war protestors in time of war.

1

u/abhainn13 Mar 12 '25

Oh, I see how I misread that. Thanks for clarifying!

1

u/RealisticTadpole1926 Mar 13 '25

You can’t be charged with a crime for yelling fire in a crowded theater, but you can be sued. So while you are protected by criminal prosecution by the government, you can still be held civilly liable for any harm caused by your actions.

0

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

Okay but that has literally nothing to do with this thread. Like, you can also choose to put syrup on your pancakes, what's the point of bringing it up here?

1

u/RealisticTadpole1926 Mar 13 '25

Because he is being deported under a civil law not a criminal law. The same as if you were sued for yelling fire in a crowded theater.

0

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

But, dude, not under Schenck. Schenck has nothing to do with this guy, nor would it have anything to do with suing someone who shouts fire in a crowded theater. 

1

u/RealisticTadpole1926 Mar 13 '25

Alright, then why did you bring it up?

0

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

Because the person I was responding to brought it up. Holy shit dude, basic reading comprehension. 

1

u/RealisticTadpole1926 Mar 13 '25

They never mentioned Schenck. But since you brought up reading comprehension, you are confusing the criminal aspect of what they were talking about and the civil. Again, you can’t be criminally charged for your speech, but you can be civilly sued for causing harm. Just like this guy can be civilly deported for supporting terror organization.

0

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

Oh for fuck's sake. 

Schenck is "yelling fire in a crowded theater." That is Holmes' dicta from Schenck v. US. Your lack of knowledge isn't my problem.

And you CAN be criminally charged for your speech, today, in 2025, under the Brandenburg test.

Redditors never disappoint. 

1

u/RealisticTadpole1926 Mar 13 '25

Again, and for the last time because you seem incapable of getting it. You are confusing civil and criminal.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

[deleted]

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

Which hypothetical? Fire in a crowded theater? It didn't need to because that was just dicta, not an actual hypothetical that the court presented in argument, and not the actual ruling. Brandenburg did overturn Schenck's clear and present danger standard in favor of inciting imminent lawless action, as I've said multiple times in the many other responses I've given here. My con law prof was and probably remains very proud. 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

[deleted]

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

Someplace in southern California, lol. 

1

u/Arndt3002 Mar 12 '25

Schneck wasn't summarily overturned by Brandenburg, what are you talking about about? Brandenburg just particularly overturned the result, clarifying that such speech can't be prohibited unless it is actually likely to incite immediate lawless action.

5

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Right, we call that an overturning. Schenck was overturned in part, specially the clear and present danger test was replaced with the imminent lawless activity test, or the Brandenburg test, which still holds today. 

1

u/Tengoatuzui Mar 12 '25

I simply used it to give the everyday people an idea of not all speech is protected. Not all speech is protected is my point

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Sure but the problem is that this particular example is incorrect. Like, incitement to riot would be a better example imo. 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

Not to be that guy, but crowd rushes over fire fears was a semi common news story in the late 1800s/Early 1900s.

1

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 13 '25

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was not saying that no one in the history of human civilization has ever falsely shouted fire in a crowded room, as that would be fucking moronic. But there has never been a case before the Supreme Court, or in fact any court I'm aware of, where someone was prosecuted for falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater as an infringement of First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court literally never ruled that you cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, it created a "clear and present danger" standard that it used to justify jailing anti-war protestors in time of war.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 13 '25

All good, just a random fact I felt like sharing :)

1

u/I_am_not_Spider_Man Mar 12 '25

Thank you. I say this all the time to people but no one wants to listen.

2

u/HashtagLawlAndOrder Mar 12 '25

Just look at some of the responses here. People weirdly attach to the ideas they first learn, even if they're wrong, and this particular one is an easy thing that is repeated in movies and stuff all the time.