Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (176684)	10/15/2003 4:54:30 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574102

Then he went on to explain how Freedom of Speech specifically does not extend to allow one to yell fire in a crowded theater. The limitation of yelling fire in a crowded theater is defined by the presence or absence of a fire. Absence representing a potential crime. While you refer to an early 1900s opinion, the courts today are still debating what constitutes speech (example: flag burning). I am not interested in debating legal interpretations. This (of course) started with certain folks on the thread trying to once again stifle anything critical of the administration. I don't think there is any question that we all have the freedom to speak our disagreements with elected officials. In fact, history shows us that the suppression of dissent is often the work of fascism. Al

To: i-node who wrote (176684)	10/15/2003 6:13:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574102

Yelling fire falsely in a crowded theater is a dangerous prank and against the law not an example of free speech limitation. You are, of course, incorrect. In fact, the very analogy was made originally by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the early 1900s, when he flat out said that a strict construction of Freedom of Speech would allow one to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Then he went on to explain how Freedom of Speech specifically does not extend to allow one to yell fire in a crowded theater. Thus, there IS a free speech limitation to prohibit such activity. You speak with such defining statements, one would get the impression you know about what you are talking. Unfortunately, you don't. Al had it right when the said "the limitation is established by the law.....not the Constitution". As you aptly point out, the Constitution does not say "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is a free speech limitation.....in fact, a strict interpretation of the Constitution does allow such a yell. However, Justice Holmes felt such a strict interpretation was wrong and chose to make a less strict interpretation, stating that free speech as defined by the Constitution does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater. And then, laws were passed by local municipalities, prohibiting such an exclamation. So Al is right, and once again, you are wrong.