It was used by Holmes in the decision made by the Supreme Court. How do you see that as having no bearing? A Supreme Court justice used the phrase. Do you not understand that?
Off Topic - Purdue ranked #6 in Free Speech according to Real Clear Education Poll
- Thread starter Abugabby
- Start date
Unfortunately, no.
(Not sure, but I think) To Andy's point, those words are used to silence people. If people hear something with which they disagree (or which refutes their world view), they say those words are hurtful or harmful. It's nothing more than the suppression of speech.
Similar to ________phobe. (select the protected group and insert as needed)
It's all "politics". Even COVID.
Oh, goodness.
Look... I understand what you think you're advocating, but it doesn't work. It's wrong, it's lazy, and it's irrelevant.
I'll link you to an article from The Atlantic, no less: It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
From the article:
Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
Please stop using it. It doesn't do what you think it does, it doesn't make your point, and it has ZERO legal bearing on the topic at hand.
Nobody is arguing "free speech" is boundless. Nobody. The "fire in a crowded theater" argument is pointless, and it has become nothing but a tired cliché, and it has never been grounded in law.
What's more, this line of thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with ... "untruths". None.
"Do you not understand that?"
Yeah, I was just pointing out that “freedom of speech” is first off, only protected against the government limiting it and even then there are limits. Secondly, speech is limited for many on a daily basis by entities such as employers, private schools, basic rules in public spaces, etc.
I have no interest in debating the politics that some seem to link to anything and everything.
Everything isn’t political. It may be for you but for me it isn’t. Right or wrong aren’t some gray area. They are black and white and we should make our decisions based on these facts and not based on which team you support. We will never all agree on everything, especially politics but we used to all agree to live our lives based on facts, right or wrong, the honor in taking a loss when you lose with good sportsmanship and respect. These things still exist and they have zero to do with politics. People may try to make them political but they aren’t. They existed before the US existed, before there was a right or a left and they should be our guiding force.
Ha ha. I didn’t make the decision or quote. That was the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Are you saying we should ignore the decision and the constitution? That’s an odd view to have. So, you want to enjoy the protection the constitution gives under the first amendment but only according to your own interpretation and ignoring the judicial branch which our forefathers put in place to make such decisions? Odd
Don't try to be so slippery. Yes, both of those words have multiple definitions. Claiming the definitions of those words can be applied to limit free speech suggests a strong political bias on your part. You say you won't discuss politics while making statements that are supported by the radical fringe of one political side.
Stating that speech can be squashed if it "hurts" or "harms" people, without clarifying your definitions and conditions, absolutely hurts and harms people. Perhaps you should consider that when sharing your political philosophy about free speech.
Do you really believe that the Supreme Court decisions do not arise from political debates, in which you claim will will not participate here? Your words here are becoming more and more, shall we say, disingenuous.
No, it wasn't "the Supreme Court of the United States of America". There was no "decision". You still don't get it.
Nowhere have I suggested we do anything so idiotic as you suggest, that "we should ignore the decision and the constitution".
Nowhere has the Supreme Court ruled that that someone cannot yell "fire" in a theater.
Ever.
You can continue to die on that hill, but it won't mean what you desperately want it to mean.
"Odd"
Okay... again... nobody has suggested that there aren't ... "limits" ... to speech. Nobody has made that case. At all.
I'm not debating ... 'politics'... that seem to link to anything and everything.
You seem to be flailing in your posts and arguments. Flailing without a point.
There are limits to speech. That has nothing to do with attempting to eliminate ... "untruths", which is just moronic.
I am recalling a previous discussion where proudopete introduced politics into a discussion about the scientific debate around the best way to achieve herd immunity. He repeatedly claimed that he wasn't being political and that only views that were opposed to his were political. As it turns out, his views on that topic have been proven by the science to be false.
Seems very limited and narrow-minded in his thinking, and fails in his attempts to hide it by trying to be slippery with his words. His spreading of untruths could be "hurtful" and "harmful" to people, so they should probably be suppressed.
Actually, the typical lefty Lib response when confronted with facts they don’t like is to stick their fingers in their ears and scream “RACIST!”
what’s your position on colleges opposing or even canceling a certain speaker because that speaker has a conservative viewpoint?
Now we are getting to the real and actionable part of the free speech debate here.
Based on this thread, his response would be that conservative thoughts and words are "hurtful" and "harmful" to people, and therefore should be cancelled.
People who can't reason can not see that not permitting these exchanges of ideas causes "hurt" and "harm" to the people who wanted to listen and to hear other ideas. It certainly violates the rights of the speaker and the people who invited him/her to speak.
Ben Shapiro is extremely intelligent and a great speaker, but he gets invited to speak on a college campus, the campus dems and libs really get themselves whipped into a frenzy.
Why? Because they don't agree with Shapiro's opinion.
Once again, this isn’t my opinion it’s the opinion of the Supreme Court. That’s their job not mine.
I could care less to be honest. They have the right to do as they please. It doesn’t have anything to do with me.
You keep trying to make this political and it isn’t. The Supreme Court is in charge of these decisions. If a college or university chooses to not have a speaker speak on their campus, don’t they have that right? The speaker isn’t being silenced. They can still say what they please, they just can’t use the resources of the school as a political pulpit. Go rent a space down the road and say what you want.
Now, I will say that not allowing a speaker to speak on campus has zero to do with law and is more of a choice to not connect the university to a certain political ideology.
Why are you so hell bent on ignoring what the Supreme Court has to say about this and instead want to make it political? What exactly has triggered you in this thread?
I am a conservative BTW. Reagan conservative to be exact.
Purdue85 already discredited your Supreme Court argument. But keep clinging to it and other dishonest statements. Trying to be slippery, but not quite smart enough. lol
This is from 85’s opinion piece which actually doesn’t discredit what I said about the Supreme Court. Free speech has limits and that isn’t my decision, it’s the Supreme Court’s. Weird seeing people advocating constitutional rights while trying to ignore the decision the Supreme Court has made regarding those rights.
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
So yeah. They didn’t overturn anything. They still put limits on speech. Opinion isn’t fact and this guy says one thing then the words he typed say another.
Once again. My point has been that free speech has limits and nobody here has shown otherwise. Y’all are trying to politicize the issue which is sad. Thats more than likely the problem and exactly what has divided the nation. People living politics everyday and judging others based on their political beliefs. In this thread alone, several people have brought up right wing propaganda trying to pigeonhole myself as against the very party I vote for. Such a sad way to live if you ask me. Perhaps turn off the 24 hour news?
Here’s a test anyone her can try if you truly believe that free speech means you can say anything, anywhere at anytime.
Go into a courtroom and start talking out loud during the proceedings. Better yet, go into a restaurant and stand up and give a political speech that lasts 15 minutes long. Try yelling at the top of your lungs at a worker in the DMV. Post a response to this post saying you are going to share my personal information.
Any of these is going to get your free speech limited. Why? Well, we live in a world with rules and often times we are in places where we don’t make the rules yet, we must follow them.
It’s pretty simple really and I am not sure why some want to try and make this a “conservatives are being silenced” argument. I don’t know if any conservatives who haven’t had the opportunity to say what they please. They may have been limited in where they can say what they please but they still have a voice and can use it freely.
Go into a courtroom and start talking out loud during the proceedings. Better yet, go into a restaurant and stand up and give a political speech that lasts 15 minutes long. Try yelling at the top of your lungs at a worker in the DMV. Post a response to this post saying you are going to share my personal information.
Any of these is going to get your free speech limited. Why? Well, we live in a world with rules and often times we are in places where we don’t make the rules yet, we must follow them.
It’s pretty simple really and I am not sure why some want to try and make this a “conservatives are being silenced” argument. I don’t know if any conservatives who haven’t had the opportunity to say what they please. They may have been limited in where they can say what they please but they still have a voice and can use it freely.
The difference as I see it is that the types of things you are talking about are when people are trying to exercise their speech at the wrong time and place.
(I can already tell I am doing a poor job of making my point).
There are times and places where order must be had in order to achieve production.
In a case such as Shapiro speaking on campus- it literally is the right time and place for exactly what he is there to do- and it is literally just the fact that some
Students and faculty disagree with what he is going to say that makes them try to get him banned.
He isn’t speaking out of turn, or yelling over someone trying to do their job, or distracting students during a professor’s lecture. He really is just speaking opinions and facts that some disagree with. It just needs to work both ways.
If a speaker can be canceled because they have a right of center viewpoint- then a speaker should be able to be canceled because they have a left of center viewpoint.
Pretty clear to me that righties get canceled because those in the positions of authority believe that what they are going to say is wrong.
Also pretty clear to me that nearly all college campuses range from left of center to very left of center.
Sorry. You have been given several very straightforward opportunities to clarify your stance, but refused. You duck and dodge when you only needed to honestly state your case. You couldn't do that. But in all of your slippery dodging, you exposed yourself and made your position clear.
Now you plead ignorance about conservatives being silenced. Your plea of ignorance is the most credible statement you have made. It goes will with your dishonesty.
There was nothing to overturn.
"Shouting fire" was not law. It was nothing. It was a throwaway line.
Eh... "politicize the issue"?? Uh, no. There are no politics in pointing out the emptiness in using "fire in a crowded theater".
Goodness, 'pete.
This is where I’m not sure what you reading. I never said shouting fire was illegal. I said free speech has limits and it does, even now. Also, it’s not mu call to have limits on speech, it is the Supreme Court who says so.
Is Liberty U a public or a private university? It makes a great deal of difference.
No, you used it as an example for the argument you were trying to make, which it was not. Nor did the Supreme Court use it to limit free speech.
Ask any police department in cities where there have been both pro-life and pro-abortion rallies -- which have been more orderly and civillized?
No one would be violent and threaten to kill the speaker. No one would set fire to the building. There would be people carrying pro-life signs, and the university would ensure that the event with the invited speaker would proceed as planned. And the speaker would be asked many thought-provoking questions by the students.
What do you think would happen?
I quoted the justice that wrote the decision. I never said it was illegal although at one time it was and it would still get one a disturbing the peace charge along with possible liability if anyone was injured.
Once again my point has always been that free speech isn’t a free for all as you said it was. It has limits which hasn’t been refuted, just railed against.
Do the people who decide who can speak at a public university not have the freedom to say no? Can just anybody speak at any university anytime they choose?
? I don’t think it works that way. People have freedom of choice as much as they have freedom of speech. I understand being upset based on how political parties want you to feel about these “limits on speech” but we all know universities are mostly run by liberals so why would a conservative be surprised when a university chooses to not give him a pulpit?
I think we are confusing freedom of speech with basic freedoms to do whatever one wants to do, like say no to a conservative speaker, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon others freedoms. I’m this case, he can still say whatever he likes, he just can’t do it in a capacity as the university inviting him to speak.
I appreciate all of the replies and the back and forth in a considerate way, all of us enjoying our right to free speech. I am going to tap now as it’s become redundant and basketball begins very soon. I want to be able to Boiler Up with all who choose to post here and continuing this discussion seems to lack any worthwhile merit but also has the opportunity to sour relationships.
We don’t always see eye to eye but I hope we can all still cheer on this years team which from the looks of things, appears to be one hell of a ride coming up. Here’s to this season and to all of the freedoms we all enjoy.
We don’t always see eye to eye but I hope we can all still cheer on this years team which from the looks of things, appears to be one hell of a ride coming up. Here’s to this season and to all of the freedoms we all enjoy.
But it wasn't a back and forth. It was you being dishonest and being weird, while everyone else proved you wrong. Then you changed the subject with more dishonest statements because, well, you don't think rationally. But it was fun to watch.
