Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Clarification just for Phil
Date:	2/4/2021 9:37:28 AM

A week or so ago I posted that I felt the carrying of loaded guns to events where there is an obvious reason to believe violence might result should be prohibited using the ''shouting fire in a crowded theater'' explanation for limiting a perceived constitutional right.

Well Phil certainly got riled up, as he often does, against such a suggestion and pointed out that the restriction to shouting fire in a theater had been repealed 50 years ago.  You are wrong Phil...there was never a shouting fire prohibition to be repealed.

The Supreme Court has never addressed shouting fire in a theater in any way.  It has never said shouting fire was speech that could be abridged nor has it said the opposite.  During WW 1 a fellow named Schenck (a Socialist by the way) was arrested for distributing leaflets opposing the military draft.  The case went to the supremes as ''The United States vs Schenck'' and in a questionable decision the court, which was considered very conservative at the time, ruled his action illegal saying that the leaflet distribution presented a ''clear and present danger'' to the nation.  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the famous statement in defense of the ruling that ''The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a theater.''  That comment is where the ''fire in a theater originated''.

In a 1969 ruling on ''Brandenburg vs Ohio'' the court overturnred the opinion in ''US vs Schenck'' and held that even inflammatory speech was protected speech, but included the caveat...''unless the speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.''  You know things like you or me shouting ''fire'' in a crowded theater or the president of the United States telling a riled up and angry crowd to march on the capitol and ''fight like hell'' to ''stop the steal'' etc etc etc blah blah blah.

Hope this clears it up for you Phil.  No need to thank me, I know what's in your heart before you even speak a word.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Clarification just for Phil
Date:	2/4/2021 9:48:10 AM (updated 2/4/2021 9:54:07 AM)

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627134/is-it-illegal-to-shout-fire-in-crowded-theater

 https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech/

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.

Try again galaxy brain.  "clear and present danger" was overturned in 1969 which is where the phrase shouting fire in a crowded theater came from - it was replaced by the higher standard imminent lawless action.  I also know what is in the area where your heart should be.... 

You want to say that Trump riled up his supporters, how do you feel about max maxxine telling people to get up in the presidents/cabinets faces and fight them in the restaurants and gasonline stations, we also now have demonrats challenging elections in at least two locations via perkins coe over *gasp* the same things that Trump wanted looked at.  Goose, Gander, Pot, Kettle.  

You are still an idiot - put me back on ignore it will make you last longer then your fruit. But am glad you got off your lazy a$$ and looked something up for a change.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Glad you agree with my assessment Phil
Date:	2/4/2021 12:59:17 PM (updated 2/4/2021 1:02:26 PM)

that the limits on constitutional speech defined by ”Clear and present danger” was replaced by “Intent to incite illegal acts” which in any sane mind would include shouting “fire” in a theater that is not on fire.  Based on some of your musings about what you would like to see befall me, you might be seen as treading on pretty thin ice yourself Phil. Define “bitch slapped”.

I believe I said at the time of her stupid comments about getting in peoples faces as well as her earlier outrageous musings during the Rodney King riots, that Maxine Waters was an idiot and to the extent she broke the law she should have be held legally accountable.  Unfortunately the same standard does not hold for the president who gets a “get out of jail free” card just because he or she is president through a rule of the DoJ rather than a ruling of the SC.  Now that the sorry SoB is out of office I hope the states, GA included, that believe he broke their laws have the fortitude to throw the book at him and at Maxine or AOC or MTG too if they break any laws while in said state.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Glad you agree with my assessment Phil
Date:	2/4/2021 1:22:37 PM (updated 2/4/2021 1:31:12 PM)

Still do not agree with you  - Glad to know you are now championing having Mad max, Pelosi and the VP removed from office........

not sure why you want me to define "bitch slap" but in I would put forth when something in general or an open hand contacts your(antifatech's) physical body, in this case you are defined as the "bitch" and the act of something coming in contact with you would be the "slap" ?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Hey you sniveling little b!tch
Date:	2/4/2021 1:31:11 PM

I am the one that says I am going to b!tch slap yoyu someday, NOT PHIL.

Here is a qutoe from you above this:

that the limits on constitutional speech defined by ”Clear and present danger” was replaced by “Intent to incite illegal acts” which in any sane mind would include shouting “fire” in a theater that is not on fire.  Based on some of your musings about what you would like to see befall me, you might be seen as treading on pretty thin ice yourself Phil. Define “bitch slapped”.

Please explain to me how shouting fire in a theater would ever be considered "intent to incite illegal acts".  Causing people to hurry out of a theater is NOT illegal dumb@ass.  Rude and socially unnaceptable, but NOT illiegal.  If you argue that it is then cite the statute you ignorant fool.

You act like some jail house lawyers.  You find a court case that appears to buttress your argument with no idea how to reseach to see if it was ever overturned, or modified.  

Now please come after me for my "threats".  I really wish you would.  I need to be shown that it will not be tolerated don't you think.  Nevermind, I know you don't think, ever, about anything, except Orange Man Bad.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Hey you sniveling little b!tch
Date:	2/4/2021 1:36:01 PM

Only thing he ever thinks about is how right he thinks he is in everything.  He may know his purlin from a fence post but bet he can not figure out where he head ends and his rectum begins.  He has his head shoved so far up his own butt, he wears his spincter like a turtleneck.