You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] LazarusLong ago 

Good article, but it got some things wrong.

Things like "fighting words" and "shouting fire in a theater" are very much protected by the first amendment.

0
1

[–] JustFeelsGoodMan 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Oh sure there is *nothing stopping you from saying those things, but society punishes those who do after they have done them. Putting a limit on speech a priori, before fact is despicable a notion as thought police and thought crime

0
0

[–] 8887217? ago 

Things like "fighting words" and "shouting fire in a theater" are very much protected by the first amendment.

Kind of.

Fighting words is in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

They upheld the conviction and listed the above as items NOT protected by the First Amendment

Fire in a crowded theater is Schenck v. United States

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] 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.

Brandenburg v. Ohio modified that only a little.

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.

Words that cause an action may not be protected in very limited cases, such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

0
0

[–] LazarusLong ago 

Both ruling have been severely limited since they were made, and the opinion you quoted is also heavily criticized for not accurately representing the precedent as lewd, obscene, profane, and insult speech is still very much protected.

"Fighting words" at this point are almost entirely limited to credible and imminent direct threats and words accompanying aggressive posturing, sometimes not even that.

This makes sense as the original ruling was one of the most massive fuck ups in the history of the supreme court and could, by its own wording, be applied to any speech deemed by any party to be offensive.

Words that cause an action may not be protected in very limited cases, such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Also, Brandenburg v. Ohio modified the previous precedent to only apply to speech that would cause imminent lawless action.

"Fire" in a crowded theater is currently protected speech.