Strict Constructionists!

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
If you are a strict constructionist, as many conservatives claim to be... Do you belive you have a right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater?

Does not the First Amendment say that freedom of speach shall not be abridged!
 
Jarod said:
If you are a strict constructionist, as many conservatives claim to be... Do you belive you have a right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater?

Does not the First Amendment say that freedom of speach shall not be abridged!
Click to expand...

you do indeed have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. You do, however, also get to bear the responsibility of your actions, should you yelling fire result in damages and injuries to anything or anyone inside.

in other words, use your fricking common sense.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you do indeed have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. You do, however, also get to bear the responsibility of your actions, should you yelling fire result in damages and injuries to anything or anyone inside.

in other words, use your fricking common sense.
Click to expand...

But you would very likely get arrested if you did so and there was no fire.


Just like you would get arrested if you buy an uzi without a permit.
 
Jarod said:
But you would very likely get arrested if you did so and there was no fire.

Just like you would get arrested if you buy an uzi without a permit.
Click to expand...

yes, you would most likely be arrested, but not for yelling fire in a crowded theater because there is no such charge. disorderly conduct would be the most appropriate charge and if there were alot of injuries due to the stampede, you could get inciting a riot.

there also is no 'permit' to buy an uzi. It's called a tax stamp, which should also be unconstitutional.
 
The entire premise that one "cannot yell fire in a crowded theater" gives license to write gun control laws which limit the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase, possess, and bear firearms is a false premise. The reason being yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a presupposed limitation. For instance, if there IS a fire in the theater, yelling "fire" may be quite appropriate. Second, there are no laws limiting free speech "just in case" someone may enter a crowded theater and yell "fire" when there is no fire.

Any limiting laws in place regarding free speech only affect the individual if they do, indeed, cause harm by their actions. Which is, indeed, the proper limitation on any individual freedom: that it cannot interfere with the liberty of another, or cause harm to others.

Placing limits on the ability to keep and bear arms, such as licenses and tax stamps, etc. are in a completely different realm from the "cannot shout fire in a crowded theater" scenario. Limiting gun control laws affect the individual even if they have never violated any laws or caused any harm to any other individual in their use of their firearms. Legal and responsible ownership of firearms in no way harms anyone. Placing limits on liberty which does not cause harm is violating the principles of liberty.

Gun control laws take action against firearms owner PRIOR to any harmful actions. Laws limiting the right to "yell fire in a crowded theater" only take action against an offending citizen AFTER any harmful action is taken. There is a HUGE difference.
 
Good Luck said:
The entire premise that one "cannot yell fire in a crowded theater" gives license to write gun control laws which limit the ability of law abiding citizens to purchase, possess, and bear firearms is a false premise. The reason being yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a presupposed limitation. For instance, if there IS a fire in the theater, yelling "fire" may be quite appropriate. Second, there are no laws limiting free speech "just in case" someone may enter a crowded theater and yell "fire" when there is no fire.

Any limiting laws in place regarding free speech only affect the individual if they do, indeed, cause harm by their actions. Which is, indeed, the proper limitation on any individual freedom: that it cannot interfere with the liberty of another, or cause harm to others.

Placing limits on the ability to keep and bear arms, such as licenses and tax stamps, etc. are in a completely different realm from the "cannot shout fire in a crowded theater" scenario. Limiting gun control laws affect the individual even if they have never violated any laws or caused any harm to any other individual in their use of their firearms. Legal and responsible ownership of firearms in no way harms anyone. Placing limits on liberty which does not cause harm is violating the principles of liberty.

Gun control laws take action against firearms owner PRIOR to any harmful actions. Laws limiting the right to "yell fire in a crowded theater" only take action against an offending citizen AFTER any harmful action is taken. There is a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...


Very good point and well illistrated. What about laws prohibiting the broadcast of certian language on television? Is that not a direct limitation of free speech? Is that prohibited, just in case someone who might be offended might be listening?
 
If one wants to lead a march down the main street of his town, he needs to get a permit prior to doing so. No harm has been done, noone has been disrupted, but a permit must be obtained.
 
Jarod said:
Very good point and well illistrated. What about laws prohibiting the broadcast of certian language on television? Is that not a direct limitation of free speech? Is that prohibited, just in case someone who might be offended might be listening?
Click to expand...

there should be no limitation on this particular aspect as well. appropriate warnings should be posted prior to any broadcast that may have language some would consider inappropriate, but we don't do that in this day and age because television is considered a babysitter where parents refuse to observe and/or monitor what their children watch.
 
Jarod said:
If one wants to lead a march down the main street of his town, he needs to get a permit prior to doing so. No harm has been done, noone has been disrupted, but a permit must be obtained.
Click to expand...

but a 'local' permit isn't a federal infringement. This would be the jurisdiction of the state constitution, unless we'd like to incorporate the freedom of assembly under the 14th Amendment (something that should have been done a very long time ago).

the thing to remember when requiring permits for demonstrations is that the requirements could be made so stringent as to prevent them, much like some gun permit processes for states.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
there should be no limitation on this particular aspect as well. appropriate warnings should be posted prior to any broadcast that may have language some would consider inappropriate, but we don't do that in this day and age because television is considered a babysitter where parents refuse to observe and/or monitor what their children watch.
Click to expand...

No, limits and boundaries have been pushed to extraordinary extremes by the in your face no bars hold producers. It is totally appropriate to save garbage mouthed and provacative adult TV for late night. It used to be common decency to do so. Now parents and advocay groups have to fight for it.
 
Jarod said:
If you are a strict constructionist, as many conservatives claim to be... Do you belive you have a right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater?

Does not the First Amendment say that freedom of speach shall not be abridged!
Click to expand...

You have a right to bear arms... not a right to shoot people. BTW, the "crowded fire" test isn't the test they use anymore. It's become a lot more strict over the years.
 
Good Luck said:
Any limiting laws in place regarding free speech only affect the individual if they do, indeed, cause harm by their actions. Which is, indeed, the proper limitation on any individual freedom: that it cannot interfere with the liberty of another, or cause harm to others.
Click to expand...

Or, if acting together, people do something that is individually beneficial and mutually destructive, to the detriment of the community.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you do indeed have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. You do, however, also get to bear the responsibility of your actions, should you yelling fire result in damages and injuries to anything or anyone inside.

in other words, use your fricking common sense.
Click to expand...

JUst like I believe that someone has the right to burn the American flag; but then I also have the right to put the fire out.
 
Jarod said:
If one wants to lead a march down the main street of his town, he needs to get a permit prior to doing so. No harm has been done, noone has been disrupted, but a permit must be obtained.
Click to expand...

Untrue.
It disrupts the normal flow of activity on main street.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, he does.

For instance. If you decide to break the law and bring a weapon into his house he has every right to use deadly force to protect himself, his family, and his property.
Click to expand...

Sex offenders don't have the right to carry guns, or be around children, so I wouldn't have to worry about either if I walked it USF's house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top