FIRE in a Crowded Theater – That Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means

Let’s talk about Schenck vs. the United States, Brandenburg vs. Ohio, the origins of the phrase ‘shouting fire in a crowded theater’ and how the free speech game is played in terms of legal precedent and government powers.

//Taboola Area

About Sursum Ursa

Ursa presents Stuff You Like, where fangirls + analysis + awesome examples of media = good times for all.

Leave a Reply

9 Comments on "FIRE in a Crowded Theater – That Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means"

happymel
Guest

This was a pretty interesting video. I’m pretty sure that I learned about this back in high school but it was nice to refresh since I like history.

seiler88
Guest

Here is what I understand about the situation in Charletsville:

Both sides lined up and started the brawl. (Think of the Battle of the Last Alliance in the first LOTR film but 85% less awesome) This voided BOTH sides rights to protected speech.

Granted I understand that by the time all is said and done the white supremists are going to end up worse off due to having more charges,including at least one murder charge, overall.

9ansean
Guest
Than I don’t think you understand the situation in Charletsville very well. I’m trying to restrain myself here. Since it’s beyond the topic of this video that I’d much rather write about, but hopefully I can summarize the most important thing to take away with going into flaming. This was not an evenly match fight. AT ALL. While the numbers may be hard to verify and it may be difficult to determine exactly how the fight got started, their isn’t any question that this United the Right rally combined multiple white supremacist group worked to intimidate and threaten violence, hurled… Read more »
seiler88
Guest

I did not write a tactical review. I wrote a legal review. Most of your points have no legal importance and the points that do are repeating what I already said.

9ansean
Guest

I was not responding as a consideration of law and couldn’t tell if that was you only intended assessment. I’m just a little feed up with the suggestion there was somehow plenty of room for blame on both sides in this case.
I do agree that a distinction needs to be made between merely advocating violence and instigating it and that it’s not always a clear line. In this case I’d say it’s clear violent instigation was intentionally (if not altogether premeditated) and coming predominantly from one side.

Fran Ohmsford
Guest
Really? One group sets up a rally {it doesn’t matter what that group is or what the rally is about because the 1st Amendment in the USA protects their right to do so so long as they are not likely to cause IMMINENT harm}. And then another group sets up in opposition in the same place WITHOUT a permit. {because they knew they’d never get one due to the obvious danger of two opposing groups rallying in the same place!}. And you think it is the first group that went looking for a fight!?! The group that violated the law… Read more »
9ansean
Guest

That is false!

The other group didn’t even need a permit as public officials have confirmed. U-Va allows access to open spaces.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/16/president-trumps-false-claim-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/?utm_term=.ecbf07730f94

The first group was repeatedly chatting anti-semitic slurs and wielding torches. “President Teresa A. Sullivan condemning the “intimidating and abhorrent behavior displayed by the alt-right protestors.”

9ansean
Guest
This rally was not in support of the 1st amendment. In was in support of white supremacy. I agree with Susan that law punishing someone because of an offending message would only work against the minorities they are supposed to protect, but there isn’t any question that this United the Right rally was made up of people who don’t believe in first amendment rights or any rights for whoever they can classify as not “real Americans.” This was not a case of a rally taken over by nasty people. This was a rally for hate lead by nasty people. Also… Read more »
9ansean
Guest
This is false. The counter-protestors didn’t even need a permit. This claim as already been given four Pinocchio’s by the Washington Post (Charlottesville spokeswoman Miriam I. Dickler told Moyer that only one permit was issued for Emancipation Park — the one received by white nationalists staging the “Unite the Right” rally. However, counterprotesters did not need permits to protest that rally, she said. “Please bear in mind that people do not need a permit to enter a public park, even when another event is scheduled to take place there, nor are they required to have one to be on streets… Read more »
wpDiscuz