In any case, isn’t this basically the whole “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example of speech that isn’t protected and is explicitly criminal? Charge his ass.
The story I’m hearing elsewhere is he pulled the alarm to delay the vote, as Republicans are violating their “72 hours to read the bill” rule they agreed to at the start of this Congressional term.
While I don’t condone the actions, the result was a delay, long enough for representatives to read a bill they are voting on, which is something that should always be allowed.
I previously read that the 72 page bill was given to House members initially with only about an hour before the vote to read and review it so that helps me make more sense of it than my own face value first conclusion.
The older I get, the more critical I realize politics is - when we fuck up, people lose their rights and push our planet closer and closer to non-life-supporting, so seeing dumb shit from the left is especially aggravating cuz that’s where our hope is. Dig through my recent posts and you’ll find several chewing out Feinstein, and it’s for the same reason. We cannot afford that shit in today’s political environment - the stakes are just too high.
Reading a bill is part of a normal procedure and the outcome is more important. So, while I don’t condone the action, at the end of the day, if the outcome benefits people other than himself, then I can understand his action. The thing is they weren’t given enough time to read as Republicans violated their own 72 hours to read the bill rule.
I think McCarthy just found out the only way to stay in power. Every time Gaetz tries to file a motion to vacate the speakership, McCarthy will just pull the fire alarm.
…when there’s an actual fire, right? Otherwise your just endangering people by causing a crowd to panic.
Edit - looked it up, goes back to Schenck v. United States, which basically states that the context of otherwise protected speech can render it criminal. The case wasn’t about shouting fire in a theater, but it produced that example to illustrate their reasoning.
Huh. I wonder if any injuries that occured would fall under that. Like if someone yelled fire and you got trampled by a panicked crowd and broke a few bones… would yelling fire in that case be assault?
Initial post stands - charge his ass! …but now more from curiosity to see what the courts would do with it than anything else.
And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn’t innocent doesn’t excuse the instigator of her death)
This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn’t whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.
You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace.
Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer’s intent wasn’t to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so!
I don’t think most people who hear the “fire in a crowded theater” line are going to think it’s about protesting war. It’s an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression.
No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law.
If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned.
Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of “imminent lawless action,” a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck.
You would have to prove intent, which is almost impossible. I accidentally set off a fire alarm once. The relevant signage was totally ambiguous and not even remotely clear.
STOP GIVING THE RIGHT AMMO YOU FUCKING DUMBASS!
In any case, isn’t this basically the whole “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example of speech that isn’t protected and is explicitly criminal? Charge his ass.
The story I’m hearing elsewhere is he pulled the alarm to delay the vote, as Republicans are violating their “72 hours to read the bill” rule they agreed to at the start of this Congressional term.
While I don’t condone the actions, the result was a delay, long enough for representatives to read a bill they are voting on, which is something that should always be allowed.
I just find it hilarious that it’s a former school principal that pulled this shit. He’s probably expelled kids for doing the same.
At the same time, he finally gets to experience the hilarity of it.
That certainly adds interesting context.
I previously read that the 72 page bill was given to House members initially with only about an hour before the vote to read and review it so that helps me make more sense of it than my own face value first conclusion.
If only people got this riled up whenever the other side broke the rules…
The fucking rage of people doing minor dumbshit stuff for kind of good reasons. Won’t someone think of the precious norms.
I’ll own it: I over reacted.
The older I get, the more critical I realize politics is - when we fuck up, people lose their rights and push our planet closer and closer to non-life-supporting, so seeing dumb shit from the left is especially aggravating cuz that’s where our hope is. Dig through my recent posts and you’ll find several chewing out Feinstein, and it’s for the same reason. We cannot afford that shit in today’s political environment - the stakes are just too high.
Yeah, but in this case it seems like the dude was rushing back to fund the government and made a genuine mistake because he was in a hurry.
Reading a bill is part of a normal procedure and the outcome is more important. So, while I don’t condone the action, at the end of the day, if the outcome benefits people other than himself, then I can understand his action. The thing is they weren’t given enough time to read as Republicans violated their own 72 hours to read the bill rule.
Unless it’s a felony they’re immune to prosecution while im session.
Well, shit. Now they’re all going to do it. Lol
I think McCarthy just found out the only way to stay in power. Every time Gaetz tries to file a motion to vacate the speakership, McCarthy will just pull the fire alarm.
Are they in session while walking the halls?
In session is all time not in recess. They are also protected traveling to D.C. from their home district.
Thank you for clarifying. Could not remember for the life of me.
There’s only two sessions a year. The reason the shutdown extension has to happen now is the session is about to adjourn.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater has been protected speech for decades now.
…when there’s an actual fire, right? Otherwise your just endangering people by causing a crowd to panic.
Edit - looked it up, goes back to Schenck v. United States, which basically states that the context of otherwise protected speech can render it criminal. The case wasn’t about shouting fire in a theater, but it produced that example to illustrate their reasoning.
That was overturned in 69. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]
Huh. I wonder if any injuries that occured would fall under that. Like if someone yelled fire and you got trampled by a panicked crowd and broke a few bones… would yelling fire in that case be assault?
Initial post stands - charge his ass! …but now more from curiosity to see what the courts would do with it than anything else.
… or yelled “Stop the steal, storm the captial” and someone got trampled to death.
And someone else was shot by law enforcement because they tried to follow those orders. (The fact she wasn’t innocent doesn’t excuse the instigator of her death)
No, because the words aren’t intended to incite lawless acts.
But, falsely pulling a fire alarm and saying words are two different things, and he can and should be charged for it.
This is not at all correct. The issue in Schenk wasn’t whether you could or could not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.
You may not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so is a criminal breach of peace.
Schenk and Brandenberg are incitement cases. Not being able to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is axiomatic proof that the framer’s intent wasn’t to ban limits on speech that obviously serves no valid free speech purpose, such as falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.
You absolutely have the right to truly yell fire in a crowded theater, though no duty to do so!
Did you not read the quote and source I provided that shows that I am correct?
You read it wrong. You may not falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. You obviously don’t have a lot of experience reading legal cases. It’s okay.
I did not read it wrong. It clearly states that the 69 case narrowed the scope so shouting fire in a crowded theater is no longer unprotected.
It doesn’t say that and that isn’t true. The first case didn’t involve a defendant who falsely shouted fire in a crowded theater.
No, the case was about protesting war.
So, whenever you use this trope, you continue to support the idea that protesting war is criminal and protesters should be imprisoned.
I don’t think most people who hear the “fire in a crowded theater” line are going to think it’s about protesting war. It’s an example when speech can have an immediate harmful effect that seems to have a lot more relevance to the discussion of limitations on expression.
No, it is about people fundamentally misunderstanding the case and continuing to misuse a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Incorrectly, acting as if it was a an actually point if law.
If used correctly, then it would be about protesting war. But people rarely understand what was said under Schenck v. United States, nor do they understand that it was overturned.
Brandenburg v. Ohio changed the standard to which speecg speech could be prosecuted only when it posed a danger of “imminent lawless action,” a formulation which is sometimes said to reflect Holmes reasoning as more fully explicated in his Abrams dissent, rather than the common law of attempts explained in Schenck.
Fire in a theater is meaningless and useless.
Removed by mod
You would have to prove intent, which is almost impossible. I accidentally set off a fire alarm once. The relevant signage was totally ambiguous and not even remotely clear.
That actually is protected speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio
deleted by creator