203Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
If there is no fire then yes, and there’s a SCOTUS decision to back it up. If the speech is dangerous and poses a clear and present danger, it’s not protected.Originally Posted by Risasi
This is a discussion on Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by KevinRohrer And is it irrelevant if he "got permission" or not. He cried FIRE! in a crowded theater, and the outcome was ...
Array
Is crying "FIRE!" in a crowded theater illegal?
Array
If there is no fire then yes, and there’s a SCOTUS decision to back it up. If the speech is dangerous and poses a clear and present danger, it’s not protected.
Array
Ah! Now that's the crux of it in this case, isn't it?
Actually, yes, you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Schenk v. United States was essentially nullified by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Do not fall for this ploy by the gun grabbers. There aren't "common sense" restrictions on free speech. This is why Fred Phelps' group was able to hold offensive signs outside funerals...not that it did them much good.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...f-free-speech/
Now to be fair, one can argue that this guy was inciting "imminent unlawful action", though he technically was not. If he hadn't taken a plea deal they would have needed to prove intent. And we know how that goes nowadays.It was only a year later that Holmes attempted to redefine the standard. In the 1919 case of Abrams v. United States, the Justice reversed his position and dissented, questioning the government’s ability to limit free speech. Holmes did not believe that the Court was applying the “clear and present danger” standard appropriately in the case, and changed its phrasing. He wrote that a stricter standard should apply, saying that the state could restrict and punish “speech that produces or is intended to produce clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek to prevent.”
But the “clear and present danger” standard would last for another 50 years. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case dealing with free speech, the Court finally replaced it with the “imminent lawless action” test. This new test stated that the state could only limit speech that incites imminent unlawful action. This standard is still applied by the Court today to free speech cases involving the advocacy of violence.
:cough: Hilliary's emails :cough, cough:
It was perception by a bunch of sheeple due to recent actions of others (El Paso, Dayton) where I don't think it totally unfair that some were alarmed. But the very fact that he had not made any aggressive action, does that still warrant a panic? We're now getting into "feel" and emotion rather than law. He had already left the store and was detained by an off duty fireman with a CCW, if I remember correctly...are you justified in calling the police over every guy in the street you think is "acting weird"?
Like I've said in the past, I'd be giving this clown the side eye and either leave and/or have been ready to respond with lethal force, but I don't believe I would have called the police.
The fact is the original charges filed against him could not stick, so they get him to plea out on some sort of dubious thought crime. There is something really wrong with our justice system.
Addendum:
From the original new article linked on the first post;
Emphasis mine. Crap like this is what leads to thought crimes like this;"...Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson announces that Dmitriy N. Andreychenko, 21, of Battlefield, Missouri, entered a guilty plea to an amended charge of the class B misdemeanor making a false report.
In the amended charge, the defendant is charged with knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department on August 8, 2019 that an active shooter situation was about to occur at the Walmart Neighborhood Market on West Republic Road in Springfield, Missouri..."
https://fox17online.com/2019/10/12/g...middle-school/
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/12...ng-finger-gun/
End result; Felony charge."Overland Park, KS – A 12-year-old girl has recently found herself entangled within the police state after she made a poor, but innocent decision to shape her fingers like a gun and point them at students. Her case is now highlighting a serious problem within America’s educational system and the police state.
Last month, a classmate jokingly asked the 12-year-old girl if she could kill five people in the class, who would they be. The girl then reportedly shaped her fingers like a gun, pointed at four other students before pretending to shoot herself."
Array
Pretty soon folks will be arrested and convicted for legally! exercising their rights just because someone felt scared. And even those who say they support rights will bow to public opinion and join in the cries of condemnation and ridicule since the punishment was obviously deserved (rights be damned!) because people felt offended by who, where, when, how, and by what with, that right was exercised.
Pretty soon people will be thinking "shall not be infringed" has been replaced by "shall only allowed if it doesn't scare anyone and it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings."
Oh.... wait.....
Array
Just to clarify my earlier post.
Do I think he should have been arrested and forced to cop a plea for something he did that was legal? No
Do I think that what he did was incredibly stupid on his part? Yes
Do I think his actions in any way advanced the cause of gun rights? No, I think it did just the opposite.
I still think it was mainly a play on his part for media attention, and to that end it succeeded.
Array
It's stupid because it shows no common sense. Agreeing with it shows no common sense.
When is the last time you did the same thing? After all it's legal...
Array
Array
Why haven't you? Do you not support your right to do so? Like to hear your reason.
Array
I mostly agree with you here. There have been too many of these kinds of incidents lately. While I'm still pro OC, just out of principle, I want to know why in the heck it's always some goober clown stooge, that fits the extreme leftist viewpoint of what a "typical gun owner" looks like?
Almost like he's working for the other side. And I think that's what rubs many of us gun owners the wrong way about guys like this. Why is it always the moron? A caricature stereotype.
Did someone put him up to this? Was it staged to make us look bad and try to "hack" the Constitution and BoR? Look at what it's done. Solidified to a lib or sheeple how "evil" gun owners are, and drives a wedge between all the pro gun owners. Is this just the age old play, to divide and conquer?
Not to get too tinfoil hattery, but it's like that Cesar Sayoc guy. WT bleepity-bleep was that guy? Creepy "silence of the lambs" cargo van, with shiny Trump stickers all over it and he just happened to mail a bunch of "bombs" that couldn't blow up to all sorts of rich and powerful people. Right at the mid-terms? Yeah, I never bought that deal.
This joker down in Springfield kind of feels like that. I wish we still had real investigative journalists who would do a deep dive on this guy in Springfield. We're being lied to all. the. time...
Array
I carry what I want to. That is usually one gun with a spare mag. Some people carry two guns, some people carry more mags etc. if I want to carry something different. I can. I don’t seek the approval of other people when I decide how to carry, and I don’t expect others to seek my approval. Nobody needs your, or my approval.
There's been a couple of removed posts in this thread, if you can't convey your argument without name calling / abusive behavior, just don't post it.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Array
No it’s not illegal and there has never been a SCOTUS ruling on it. I cleared that up in one of these threads recently.
We get the government we deserve.
Array
I understand and support this premise. But...
To be fair, let's understand this often mis represented argument that progressives often make. And they often use it to mis represent gun control.
The "fire in a crowded theater" quote was Supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He was writing the opinion for a case of a person protesting the WWI draft. Holmes said protesting the draft called for action that endangers public safety, like shouting fire....
Most people today support the right to protest the draft. The Vietnam war pretty much changed that opinion. So when a progressive uses this quote to rationalize gun control, ask them if they oppose public speach against the draft.
Now, here is the historical event that to which Holmes referred.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
Union bosses chained the doors shut, locking families in their Christmas party. They then banged on the doors, yelling FIRE, until it incited a panic. People rushed the chained doors, injuring and killing people.
So, you cannot lock a crowd in a hall, then yell fire and take additional actions to incite a panic.
But that even had nothing to do with protesting the draft.
Psalm 144:1
Array
Well, you’re wrong. Shenck vs US. Look it up.
Expressions which the circumstances are intended to result in a crime aren’t protected.
Array
That case was over whether passing out fliers violated the espionage act. They did not rule on whether it was illegal to yell fire in a theater.
We get the government we deserve.
Posting Permissions