Trump is constantly, and falsely, yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater

[Cyrano]

Falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is speech that is not protected by the Constitution. Yet, Trump occupied the White House for four years, and falsely cried "Fire" on virtually a daily basis. And he's still at it. His rabid rants can result in, not only individual deaths, but the death of democracy in America. Sadly, the entire Republican Party is either remaining silent, or joining him in his unhinged "fire-shouting."

Some here will ask, "WTF are you talking about?"

I'm talking about a man who insists the 2020 election was stolen from him.

I'm talking about a man who "loves" the thugs who attempted a coup d'etat on January, 6th 2021.

I'm talking about a man who actually believes that no law applies to him.

I'm talking about a man who ripped the mask of civility off of the Republican Party.

I'm talking about a man who exploited every raw emotion of bigots, racists and haters.

I'm talking about a man who doesn't care about any human being on this planet except himself.

I'm talking about a man who falsely and often yells "FIRE" in a crowded theater, just for his own amusement.

And now, this madman wants to become president again and pardon those who tried to overthrow our government.

Somewhere, somehow, America took a wrong turn. My guess is that it started about 50 years ago in the bowels of the Republican Party and has been growing more malignant ever since. Today, they are a deadly threat to democracy, and perhaps even the world. And their cult leader constantly and falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is just fine with them. After all, they don't care how many peasants die. Just so long as they get to hold all the power.

[onecaliberal]

1. He has the backing of the mainsteam press in america.

President Biden is now getting the blame for everything trump fucked up.

[Blue Owl]

2. They're like his megaphone...

Cut the mic already!

[Kaleva]

3. The 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision effectively overturned the 1919 Schenck decision

"In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

https://www.yipinstitute.com/articles/fire-in-a-crowded-theatre-discontinue-the-irrelevant-rebuttal

Your commetn:

"Falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is speech that is not protected by the Constitution. &quot Emphasis mine)

Does the above mean falsely yelling fire in a theater that is half full or even at 3/4 capacity is legal? Would TFG speaking at a venue that isn't at full capacity protect him?

[Jedi Guy]

6. +1 ;)

[NYC Liberal]

7. Also. The context of that analogy was justifying arresting and imprisoning anti war

protesters.

[Jedi Guy]

4. Not entirely accurate.

The "fire in a crowded theater" bit originated from Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1919 SCOTUS case (Schenck v. United States). What was important about that case was that it introduced the "clear and present danger" standard, but "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was never binding law regardless.

In any case, that particular test for abridging speech was overturned years later in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which introduced the current test for abridging freedom of speech, the so-called Brandenburg test. Under the test, for speech not to be protected under the First Amendment, it must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action.

That line is very clearly drawn. Trump's unhinged claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him are protected speech under the First Amendment, as are his claims of "love" for the 1/6 insurrectionists, as is playing to his base's worst racist impulses. It sucks, but that's how the First Amendment works.

Now, you could (and DOJ honestly should) make the argument that he directly incited the riot and insurrection on 1/6 with his comments about fighting like hell, showing strength, etc. etc. He very clearly whipped them into a foaming frenzy and then turned them loose on the Capitol before scuttling back to the White House to watch his handiwork on live TV. But his remarks were very carefully calculated to shield him under the First Amendment, because as I recall he mentioned doing so peacefully, yadda yadda.

We all know exactly what he intended to do, and what followed was 100% what he wanted and intended to happen. But freedom of expression is strongly protected by the First Amendment and its exceptions are very, very narrowly drawn. Incidentally, this is why there's no law against "hate speech" in the United States.

But it's not about what we know or what DOJ can allege. It's about what DOJ can prove. Hopefully between the 1/6 Committee and the DOJ, they're lining up their ducks to prove that Trump intentionally set out to incite the riot and the insurrection.

[Kaleva]

5. +1