It's not like anyone else was not talking.

So did they put the fire out?

No word as to whether or not there was actually a fire.

I would imagine that would make a difference.

Confirmation bias. No one remembers when yelling fire results in zero casualties.

Quickly, we have to take away peoples right to speak without a license!

/background check.
/Ten day waiting period.
/not more than one word at a time or ten in a row.
/Slashies controlled by special "sporting purposes" law, cannot be used if you were born after 1986, Cost $200 each.

Yelling Theater at a fire is still legal?

way south: Quickly, we have to take away peoples right to speak without a license!

/background check.
/Ten day waiting period.
/not more than one word at a time or ten in a row.
/Slashies controlled by special "sporting purposes" law, cannot be used if you were born after 1986, Cost $200 each.

I dare you to make less sense.

IIRC the "fire in a crowded theater" doctrine was overturned by later decisions from the civil rights era.

lewismarktwo: Confirmation bias. No one remembers when yelling fire results in zero casualties.

Im not sure thats relevant, even though its certainly true.

If someone shouted way out loud in a theatre "Fire, in the second row, this whole place is a powder keg!!!" You'd notice em....


Cellophane Mr.... Cellophane should I, bend my name.....

Arkanaut: IIRC the "fire in a crowded theater" doctrine was overturned by later decisions from the civil rights era.

YRI.

Freezebyte: Cellophane Mr.... Cellophane should I, bend my name.....

I thought the lyric was "shoulda been my name"

Freezebyte: If someone shouted way out loud in a theatre "Fire, in the second row, this whole place is a powder keg!!!" You'd notice em....


Cellophane Mr.... Cellophane should I, bend have been my name.....

/FTFY

KatjaMouse: Freezebyte: Cellophane Mr.... Cellophane should I, bend my name.....

I thought the lyric was "shoulda been my name"


Maybe it was, i've always been terrible at hearing and interpreting lyrics in music, needless to say, rap sounds like garble to me.

KatjaMouse: GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!

*jumps out window*

I thought that old thing had become passe about the time we found out that saying someone deserves killing, or that "second amendment solutions may be required", became okee dokee. There is no more speech that is outside the bounds of reason as far as I can determine*.


*unless of course it goes against teabagger/republitard sensibilities

Looks for picture of Costanza pushing people out of the way...

/Leaves disappointed

Error403: I thought that old thing had become passe about the time we found out that saying someone deserves killing, or that "second amendment solutions may be required", became okee dokee. There is no more speech that is outside the bounds of reason as far as I can determine*.


*unless of course it goes against teabagger/republitard sensibilities

If you can't see the difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded move theater, and some dumbass "pundit" using the term "second amendment solutions may be required" in a speech then...I don't know... maybe you should make sure you are never a free speech attorney?

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: If you can't see the difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded move theater, and some dumbass "pundit" using the term "second amendment solutions may be required" in a speech then...I don't know... maybe you should make sure you are never a free speech attorney?

[That's the Joke.jpg]

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Error403: I thought that old thing had become passe about the time we found out that saying someone deserves killing, or that "second amendment solutions may be required", became okee dokee. There is no more speech that is outside the bounds of reason as far as I can determine*.


*unless of course it goes against teabagger/republitard sensibilities

If you can't see the difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded move theater, and some dumbass "pundit" using the term "second amendment solutions may be required" in a speech then...I don't know... maybe you should make sure you are never a free speech attorney?

The main legal distinction is that the danger of anyone exercising 2nd Amendment solutions against the government is pretty slim. But as more Tim McVeighs, Jared Loughners, and Jim Adkissons "exercise their 2nd Amendment rights," the danger associated with 2nd Amendment solution talk becomes clearer and more present. If we get to the point where any sort of organized action against the government becomes likely, then the government has every right to take 2nd Amendment talkers into custody, not torture them until they admit they're terrorists, and then hold them without trial for national security reasons for as long as the possibility of gun related terrorism exists.

Fark Me Runnin: No word as to whether or not there was actually a fire.

I would imagine that would make a difference.

That in fact would make ALL the difference, at least under the old analogy since Justice Holmes specifically stated that what is bad is "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" The falsely is key of course because yelling fire when there is one is not necessarily a bad thing. Given that Holmes was indicating that speech that has only downsides but no upsides may be curtailed, the falseness of the yelling would be kinda the whole point.

/Brandenburg rules anyway

captain_heroic44: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Error403: I thought that old thing had become passe about the time we found out that saying someone deserves killing, or that "second amendment solutions may be required", became okee dokee. There is no more speech that is outside the bounds of reason as far as I can determine*.


*unless of course it goes against teabagger/republitard sensibilities

If you can't see the difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded move theater, and some dumbass "pundit" using the term "second amendment solutions may be required" in a speech then...I don't know... maybe you should make sure you are never a free speech attorney?

The main legal distinction is that the danger of anyone exercising 2nd Amendment solutions against the government is pretty slim. But as more Tim McVeighs, Jared Loughners, and Jim Adkissons "exercise their 2nd Amendment rights," the danger associated with 2nd Amendment solution talk becomes clearer and more present. If we get to the point where any sort of organized action against the government becomes likely necessary, then the government has every right to take 2nd Amendment talkers into custody, not torture them until they admit they're terrorists, and then hold them without trial for national security reasons for as long as the possibility of gun related terrorism exists.

fixed.

lewismarktwo: Confirmation bias. No one remembers when yelling fire results in zero casualties.

Polish firing squad?

Freezebyte: If someone shouted way out loud in a theatre "Fire, in the second row, this whole place is a powder keg!!!" You'd notice em....


Cellophane Mr.... Cellophane should I, bend my name.....

SHOULD HAVE BEEN MY NAME

/Common lyricosis?

I don't get the Constitutional law theory part.

Given the times, wouldn't people think "Yeah, the Bloodhound Gang is pretty awesome. 'We don't need no water let the motherf*cker burn!' HA HA. That's a classic. Guess I'll just mosey out the door now"

I would think that if there were an actual fire in a movie theater, one would be obligated to yell fire.

Would I be held responsible if I simply followed the "rule" and quietly left the theater, letting my fellow moviegoers to suffer a fiery death?

I don't think the whole free speech constraints crowd has thought this issue through thoroughly enough.