Pfizer hid a lot of the damage done as did the others. A lot of people can die by the time books come out. [1] That's one of the many reasons I held off and glad I did.
Not every book that gets published is accurate, especially print on demand Amazon books with forwards by men like Bannon.
You know how many excess deaths there have been among the vaccinated? Now compare that to the unavaccinated for the same period. Make the same comparison with disability if you'd like.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater being illegal was used to make it illegal to oppose the draft (Schenck v. United States). So actually, since opposing the draft is legal, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is legal too.
You would be charged with inciting a riot, reckless homicide, etc regardless of the actual words you shouted to cause the deaths, but I see your point.
"Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being used as an excuse for censorship is the surest way to know you are talking to someone who hasn't even started doing the reading. Even worse, they often (over the past very few years) self-identify as socialists or anti-war, and the decision was in order to prosecute anti-war socialists for passing out pamphlets.
If somebody says it, they not only don't care about free speech, they don't even care about having a good faith conversation about free speech. They've probably been told this before, and didn't bother to look it up, just repeated it again. Wasting good people's time.
The current law is dictated by the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, and it's explicit that shouting fire in a crowded theater is very much one of the only kinds of speech that IS restricted. They literally use that example in the decision.
So.... I think you might be the one who didn't do the research. Thank you for attending my TED talk.
This is inaccurate. Brandenburg v. Ohio explicitly states the opposite.
Justice Douglas specifically talks about the "fire in a crowded theater" issue being one of the few types of language that is specifically illegal beginning on the bottom of page 456 below. It's a PDF file of the original decision.
"The example usually given by those who would punish
speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a
crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded
with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 536-
537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed insep-
arable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt
acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that
kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. "
People have the right to believe things that could get them killed and the right to share their beliefs with others.
Allowing the debate to be shut down is undemocratic and unscientific (science without question is nothing more than religion).
Not allowing people to come to different conclusions from the same data is tyranny.
> People have the right to believe things that could get them killed and the right to share their beliefs with others.
You're allowed to believe whatever you like. Selling horse paste and 5g shields to mental defectives on the internet and getting THEM killed is wrong.
Pfizer hid a lot of the damage done as did the others. A lot of people can die by the time books come out. [1] That's one of the many reasons I held off and glad I did.
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Pfizer-Papers-Pfizers-Against-Humanit...
Not every book that gets published is accurate, especially print on demand Amazon books with forwards by men like Bannon.
You know how many excess deaths there have been among the vaccinated? Now compare that to the unavaccinated for the same period. Make the same comparison with disability if you'd like.
That's all the evidence you need.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater being illegal was used to make it illegal to oppose the draft (Schenck v. United States). So actually, since opposing the draft is legal, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is legal too.
You would be charged with inciting a riot, reckless homicide, etc regardless of the actual words you shouted to cause the deaths, but I see your point.
"Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" being used as an excuse for censorship is the surest way to know you are talking to someone who hasn't even started doing the reading. Even worse, they often (over the past very few years) self-identify as socialists or anti-war, and the decision was in order to prosecute anti-war socialists for passing out pamphlets.
If somebody says it, they not only don't care about free speech, they don't even care about having a good faith conversation about free speech. They've probably been told this before, and didn't bother to look it up, just repeated it again. Wasting good people's time.
edit: here's a copy of fire in a crowded theater, https://postimg.cc/gallery/q4PJnPh
See my other comments here. You are wrong.
The current law is dictated by the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, and it's explicit that shouting fire in a crowded theater is very much one of the only kinds of speech that IS restricted. They literally use that example in the decision.
So.... I think you might be the one who didn't do the research. Thank you for attending my TED talk.
Brother, I'm on the spectrum so it's possible I'm the one missing the point here, but I think this time its the other way around.
To me and most folks that I know its a figure of speech, not a reference to the actual 1919 supreme court case.
2 replies →
Yep, and that's what Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined.
This is inaccurate. Brandenburg v. Ohio explicitly states the opposite.
Justice Douglas specifically talks about the "fire in a crowded theater" issue being one of the few types of language that is specifically illegal beginning on the bottom of page 456 below. It's a PDF file of the original decision.
"The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 536- 537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed insep- arable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. "
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
That's quite the legal theory.