🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@anonymoose Perhaps, I never really asked people. But I always interpreted it as just an example of something that isnt protected by free speech and not a reference to a specific case of any kind. In fact I always figured there were many cases that would fit the example.

WOOT! My sake just arrived! Three bottles of various premium grade sake. Looks like ill be tipsy coding today!

Here are the three bottles I bought from cheapest to most expensive:

Hakutsuru “Junmai Ginjo” - 60% RPR (the percentage of polishing of the rice, rice polishing ratio), meant to be drank warm or cold.

Yuho “Rhythm of the Centuries” - the only aged one (sake isnt usually aged), aged for 4 years, 55% polished rice, warm or room temperature

Dassai “45” - 45% RPR, drank cold

#sake #alcohol

@anonymoose

First off, it is an example, no one has ever used it to claim it was a reference to an actual event.. that said the idea that "no one screamed fire" is false. There are at least 3 incidents I know of people intentionally and falsely screaming fire in a theater which got them in trouble.

"It was a religious guy..."

No, the example was never used to say what literally happened, it was an example that was intended as an analogy for the religious guy distributing anti-war leaflets. While the initial use of the phrase may have been a poor analogy for the situation he was trying to argue against it is still an entierly valid example and no one has ever thought that it was meant to describe a literal event that happened.

@icedquinn

@icedquinn No it does "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..." The 14th amendment clearly extends "liberty" as a guarantee to the people, and no longer scoped to just the national level.

Of course you'd be right to say that there is a requirement for someone to interprit what "liberty" is defined as. But considering that was the purpose of the bill of rights, to enumerate the 10 things the constitution defines as liberties, it is objectively the most reasonable thing to use to fit that definition.

And as I said your arguing without awareness to the context. There was implied scope equal to that explicitly stated in the 1st amendment in all of the original amendments since at the time of writing on the constitution its scope was explicitly limited to a federal level. So the scoping you see in the 1st amendment was not intended to be a limiting factor but just idle verbiage since the scope was already defined at the time of writing and added nothing. The second amendment while not explicitly scoped had the exact same implied scope. Only after the late 1800s did that implied scope go away. The 14th amendment just did us the favor of reminding us that all the liberties that were originally under that implied (or in some cases explicit) scope now extended to all the citizens.

@icedquinn it **was** scoped, the 14th amendment then basically said "Everything that was a liberty mentioned earlier that was scooped now applied to all stated", the bill of rights being the liberties, thus removing that previous scope and extending it to the states.

@icedquinn I already quoted the exact clause, word from word, from the 14th amendment that extended the bill of rights to states.. So not sure how you can argue that there is no power extension.. the text is pretty explicit in the fact that it is extending the rights of liberty enumerated in the constitution to the states.

@johnabs LAWL

@icedquinn its not about just what judges say, like I said I agree with them.

14th amendment clearly states that a state can not deny a citizen liberty. The bill of rights was defined as an enumerations of the liberties the constitution intended to encode. Therefore interpriting that clause in the 14th amendment to extend freedom of speech to the states and its people makes perfect sense.

Its also important to understand context IMO. The only reason the bill of rights didnt originally extend to the states was because at the time state laws always overrode national laws, so it couldn't extend to the states. By 1866 however the law on this reversed and national laws overrode state laws. and by 1868 the 14th amendment was written to effectively ensure the "liberties" that were originally written under a different structure now explicitly extended beyond just congress.

@icedquinn the 14th amendment says a lot more than that.. as I said already it states a "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" and "liberty" has been deemed by the supreme court (and I'd agree with the interpretation) to include free speech and the bill of rights as a whole.

@johnabs Then you are wrong :)

@icedquinn from the 14th amendment:

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

The bill of rights has been interpreted to fall under "liberty" and "due process" by the supreme court (and I would agree). Thus this clause extends freedom of speech to the states as per current legal precedence.

@icedquinn Sorry 1868 (just checked)

@icedquinn yes but in 1866 the 14th amendment expanded it to the states, which has been confirmed by the supreme court interpretation of the 14th amendment.

@icedquinn how ya figure.. states and their citizens are beholden to the constitution.

@mur2501 shhhh :)

@icedquinn cant sue someone for fraud if its protected as free speech either.. luckily fraud is not protected by free speech either (its a verbal contract and contracts arent free-speech protected).

@icedquinn I mean, there is a type of spoken expression that I'd argue isnt speech in the sense of free speech, but I also agree that is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

Deaming that screaming "fire" in a theater is not protected by free speech is something I find perfectly acceptable.