how 'reasonable restrictions' gets used against you

SmarterThanYou said:

“I know this individual probably feels that the freedom of speech is being trampled on,” Kelly acknowledged. “But there are limits to freedom of speech — you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — and the Mass. Legislature decided that Massachusetts courthouses should be above the fray of people trying to picket.”
Click to expand...

I hate when people overuse this quote without even really thinking about it. It seems like they just say "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, therefore whatever restriction I've just come up with on speech is valid!" The court ruling in which OWH said "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" has since been overruled anyway. For one thing, the rather broad ruling, although called the "clear and present danger" test, was actually more along the lines of a bad tendency test, which is extremely broad.

Six months after the ruling in which OWH made that quote, the supreme court explicitly accepted the bad tendency test. OWH, however, seems to have regretted his initial ruling, and dissented, arguing that the "clear and present danger" should be interpreted in a much more restrictive fashion. But "bad tendency" was the law of the land until Brandeburg v. Ohio overruled it with the "imminent lawless action" test, which was like "clear and present danger" besides for the fact that the threat of violence had to be immediate in nature.

So, now, we have incredibly expansive standards for speech. People can actually make violent speech, and this is allowed as long as the threat from the speech isn't imminent. And someone is only allowed to be prosecuted for libel if the state can prove that the person knew it was a lie when they said it. Those are the standards by which we judge speech, not "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre", a phrase that describes a perfectly logical restriction on speech that unfortunately has little if anything to do with the restrictions that people typically argue for using it.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
I hate when people overuse this quote without even really thinking about it. It seems like they just say "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, therefore whatever restriction I've just come up with on speech is valid!" The court ruling in which OWH said "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" has since been overruled anyway. For one thing, the rather broad ruling, although called the "clear and present danger" test, was actually more along the lines of a bad tendency test, which is very dangerous.

Six months later, the supreme court explicitly accepted the bad tendency test. OWH, however, seems to have regretted his initial ruling, and he argued that "clear and present danger" should be interpreted in a much more restrictive fashion in the ruling that made "bad tendency" the official test. But "bad tendency" was the law of the land until Brandeburg v. Ohio overruled it with the "imminent lawless action" test, which was like "clear and present danger" besides for the fact that the threat of violence had to be immediate in nature.

So, now, we have incredibly expansive standards for speech. People can actually make violent speech, and this is allowed as long as the threat from the speech isn't imminent. And someone is only allowed to be prosecuted for libel is the state can prove that the person knew it was a lie when they said it. Those are the standards by which we judge speech, not "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre", a perfectly logical restriction on speech that unfortunately has little if anything to do with the restrictions that people typically argue for using the phrase.
Click to expand...

outstanding, thank you very much.

as I said, this is how 'reasonable restrictions' gets used against you.
 
I really think that peoples thoughts are along the line of "Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is bad and prohibited. This form of speech that I dislike is also bad, therefore, it should be prohibited". Really, it's a lot more complicated. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is pretty much the worst form of speech you could possibly imagine, being an intentional lie that immediately causes a significant amount of danger. It's obvious why it passes the tests we use to judge whether a prohibition on speech is valid. We should refer directly to the tests themselves (or propose different ones), not to this often misunderstood phrase.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
The problem is the Libertarians don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. People have to make a choice. What are their chances of being a victim of an illegal search compared to being a victim of unemployment or a victim of cancer? The "solution" to Libertarians getting elected is to state government will help but not interfere. One quick, easy way that would solve a great number of problems is to implement a guaranteed income. No unemployment. No welfare. No food stamps or all the other "helping" programs. Just one program to deal with poverty.

As I've noted many times when the country was founded everyone had to work in order to survive. People could not be obliged to help others as it took all their resources to look after themselves. Those times have changed. Those capable of contributing financially to help others are not put in jeopardy. In large measure it's due to those who refuse to contribute "voluntarily" that results in the bureaucratic nightmare we see today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the guaranteed income worked out well for the USSR.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, the guaranteed income worked out well for the USSR.
Click to expand...

When one looks at the past failures of socialist systems they conveniently forget the people in charge got there by force. Do we expect anyone who kills the current government and forcibly takes over is going to be benevolent? People point to Russia, China and Cuba rather than Denmark and Sweden and Holland and other democratically elected social governments.

When Russia switched to a Capitalistic form of government it sold off government property/businesses to whom? To people who had made money in the Communist system. Rather than the thieves benefitting from a communist government they bought the businesses and continued enjoying the good life.

It doesn't matter what system is in place if corrupt people are at the helm. Also, social programs are not the reason some socialist societies progress slowly. It has nothing to do with people being lazy. It has to do with corruption, outright theft.

About 20 years ago I dated a gal from Bulgaria. Her parents were "comfortable". I asked if her parents would be coming for a visit and she said they couldn't both come at the same time as their home would be ransacked and everything stolen. She explained the corruption was so bad the Police would be in on the theft. Everything of value would be taken and no one charged. Her parents deliberately drove an older car so as not to attract attention. People didn't strive to obtain material possessions to the extent we do here because their possessions would be stolen due to rampant crime. It was not due to them being lazy as the excuse frequently given when mentioning social programs.

All healthy human beings want to improve their lives. The problem is many of the social programs in strictly capitalist countries are not geared to help the people. They prevent the people from starving but they don't address the root problems like education and opportunity. Furthermore, capitalistic governments wait until the person has lost everything before offering help which is then grudgingly given. Individuals lose their initiative. The government waits until they've lost everything including, in many cases, family break-up. What twisted thinking is involved in having a person out of work for a year result in losing their home in which they've lived for 20 or more years? The unemployment 26 week limit and then welfare is/was an abomination.

Maybe it's time to come up with an unemployment "999 plan" with a permanent 99 weeks of eligibility along with 9 months of skill upgrading/retraining courses. Maybe businesses could be paid to train people to fill positions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants. Maybe it's time to revamp the so-called "helping programs" so they actually help rather than them being little more than life support programs.
 
apple0154 said:
When one looks at the past failures of socialist systems they conveniently forget the people in charge got there by force. Do we expect anyone who kills the current government and forcibly takes over is going to be benevolent? People point to Russia, China and Cuba rather than Denmark and Sweden and Holland and other democratically elected social governments.

When Russia switched to a Capitalistic form of government it sold off government property/businesses to whom? To people who had made money in the Communist system. Rather than the thieves benefitting from a communist government they bought the businesses and continued enjoying the good life.

It doesn't matter what system is in place if corrupt people are at the helm. Also, social programs are not the reason some socialist societies progress slowly. It has nothing to do with people being lazy. It has to do with corruption, outright theft.

About 20 years ago I dated a gal from Bulgaria. Her parents were "comfortable". I asked if her parents would be coming for a visit and she said they couldn't both come at the same time as their home would be ransacked and everything stolen. She explained the corruption was so bad the Police would be in on the theft. Everything of value would be taken and no one charged. Her parents deliberately drove an older car so as not to attract attention. People didn't strive to obtain material possessions to the extent we do here because their possessions would be stolen due to rampant crime. It was not due to them being lazy as the excuse frequently given when mentioning social programs.

All healthy human beings want to improve their lives. The problem is many of the social programs in strictly capitalist countries are not geared to help the people. They prevent the people from starving but they don't address the root problems like education and opportunity. Furthermore, capitalistic governments wait until the person has lost everything before offering help which is then grudgingly given. Individuals lose their initiative. The government waits until they've lost everything including, in many cases, family break-up. What twisted thinking is involved in having a person out of work for a year result in losing their home in which they've lived for 20 or more years? The unemployment 26 week limit and then welfare is/was an abomination.

Maybe it's time to come up with an unemployment "999 plan" with a permanent 99 weeks of eligibility along with 9 months of skill upgrading/retraining courses. Maybe businesses could be paid to train people to fill positions where there is a shortage of qualified applicants. Maybe it's time to revamp the so-called "helping programs" so they actually help rather than them being little more than life support programs.
Click to expand...

Maybe we could like that "999" plan, but what you offered was "guaranteed income" which is an entirely different thing. All "healthy" people are not you or your assumption, and no not everybody wants to "improve their life".

Many people would happily collect their "guaranteed income" with no urge to improve.
 
Damocles said:
Maybe we could like that "999" plan, but what you offered was "guaranteed income" which is an entirely different thing. All "healthy" people are not you or your assumption, and no not everybody wants to "improve their life".

Many people would happily collect their "guaranteed income" with no urge to improve.
Click to expand...

When teens do not participate in life there is almost always a problem. I believe the same applies to adults.
 
apple0154 said:
Priority, man. Priority. Ya don't mess with another man's truck!

Besides, Bush already trashed the Constitution. And, yes, Obama is continuing because that's precisely what happens when the door is opened. Once the power is given to one POTUS every succeeding one has it and pushes it a little further. Did any Righties speak up when Bush and Cheney went ape-shit? Nooooo.
Click to expand...

Now why doesnt it surprise me you would blame on Bush, A Mass. law that was probably on the books, long before Bush even took office. The Bush derrangement syndrome is alive and well.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2011/12/19/news/news04.txt

First police charged his brother for assaulting a thief allegedly breaking into his truck.

Now Ken McKay Jr., of Swampscott says police told him he risks being arrested and up to a $5,000 fine and or a year in prison for supporting his brother by holding a protest outside Lynn District Court

Ken McKay Jr, said he planned to organize a protest outside Lynn District Court on Jan. 24, the scheduled date of his brother’s pre-trial hearing.

He said he wanted to highlight an “unjust” charge against his brother. He also wanted to support proposed legislation that protects individuals “in any place that they have a right to be” from civil and criminal liability due to death or injuries to an assailant if the individual acted in self-defense.

But when Kenneth McKay Jr. told Lynn Police about his plans to protest, he said that Capt. Chris Reddy told him that protesting “in or near” the courthouse violated Massachusetts law.

Reddy cited Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268 Section 13A. The law states “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the commonwealth ...” can be sentenced to a fine of up to $5,000 and/or a year imprisonment.

Ken McKay Jr. also said that Reddy told him he could not move across the street to City Hall.

Now Ken McKay Jr. said it is his free speech that is being threatened.

Lynn Police Spokesperson Lt. Christopher Kelly deferred to the captain’s interpretation of the law.

“Common sense would tell me, somewhere where you could be seen or heard by the courthouse,” would be considered “near,” as according to the statute, Kelly said.

“I know this individual probably feels that the freedom of speech is being trampled on,” Kelly acknowledged. “But there are limits to freedom of speech — you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — and the Mass. Legislature decided that Massachusetts courthouses should be above the fray of people trying to picket.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like Masschusetts law violates the 1st Amendment and everybody responsible for said law needs to be tossed out office. Also ... the police involved need to lose their badges.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
I hate when people overuse this quote without even really thinking about it. It seems like they just say "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, therefore whatever restriction I've just come up with on speech is valid!" The court ruling in which OWH said "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" has since been overruled anyway. For one thing, the rather broad ruling, although called the "clear and present danger" test, was actually more along the lines of a bad tendency test, which is extremely broad.

Six months after the ruling in which OWH made that quote, the supreme court explicitly accepted the bad tendency test. OWH, however, seems to have regretted his initial ruling, and dissented, arguing that the "clear and present danger" should be interpreted in a much more restrictive fashion. But "bad tendency" was the law of the land until Brandeburg v. Ohio overruled it with the "imminent lawless action" test, which was like "clear and present danger" besides for the fact that the threat of violence had to be immediate in nature.

So, now, we have incredibly expansive standards for speech. People can actually make violent speech, and this is allowed as long as the threat from the speech isn't imminent. And someone is only allowed to be prosecuted for libel if the state can prove that the person knew it was a lie when they said it. Those are the standards by which we judge speech, not "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre", a phrase that describes a perfectly logical restriction on speech that unfortunately has little if anything to do with the restrictions that people typically argue for using it.
Click to expand...

The restrictions named by the Massechusetts government are in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Free speech CANNOT be restricted; nor can any citizen be punished for exercising their rights under the 1st Amendment. It's time for Massachusetts and its kangaroo court system to be delt with.
 
dixon76710 said:
Now why doesnt it surprise me you would blame on Bush, A Mass. law that was probably on the books, long before Bush even took office. The Bush derrangement syndrome is alive and well.
Click to expand...

I was making a comparison with the home search laws and Bush's Patriot Act and how ones rights are being eroded. I should have kept the conversation simple realizing your limited comprehension ability.
 
Damocles said:
Then why do you support an option that would ensure non-participation by many?
Click to expand...

If you're referring to everyone paying only those capable of paying can pay. Many people, at different times in their life, fall into financial difficulty. That's no reason they should lose basic services.
 
apple0154 said:
If you're referring to everyone paying only those capable of paying can pay. Many people, at different times in their life, fall into financial difficulty. That's no reason they should lose basic services.
Click to expand...

No, I am referring to your previous suggestion that there should be a guaranteed perpetual wage for those who aren't working. I've been very consistent, I quoted that post, asked questions about it, pointed out where it failed, and so far you have (apparently purposefully) avoided answering the questions and pretend to "misunderstand"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top