General Discussion

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)

98. And for all you people using the "Fire in a crowded theather" analogy

Sat May 9, 2015, 06:28 AM

May 2015

Here is the difference. A reasonable response by a reasonable person to someone yelling fire in a movie theather is to get the hell out.

A false fire alarm is intended to get that response- the reasonable response expected by people hearing it.

There is nothing reasonable about killing people over cartoons. Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

We can't use the unreasonable, irrational response of zealots as justification to start banning speech. Because if we do that just sends the message violence works. Next thing you know a few idiots set bombs at LGBT pride events and make more threats and LGBT events and speech supporting thier issues becomes banned.... And if you think that's a leap, then your letting your emotions cloud your vision because the logic would be exactly the same- if someone threatens violence then the speech isn't protected.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

129 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment [View all] Not water May 2015 OP

True shenmue May 2015 #1

well, no not exactly true, but reddread May 2015 #3

It does cover yelling fire in a theater. NutmegYankee May 2015 #7

And people also seem to forget the qualifier for that phrase NuclearDem May 2015 #9

True, but the reasoning behind it is sound. If someone Exilednight May 2015 #31

No, it has to be a lot more direct than that. Yo_Mama May 2015 #116

k&r beam me up scottie May 2015 #2

Hateful acts like beheading people, raping people, murdering people seveneyes May 2015 #4

+10 840high May 2015 #30

Thank you iandhr May 2015 #51

1st Amendment doesnt mean a thing reddread May 2015 #5

The author has an interesting biography... DonViejo May 2015 #6

So do the RW Scotus Justices. merrily May 2015 #82

Yes, the justices he used to write decisions for and who use his writings to make DonViejo May 2015 #104

Pamela Geller specializes in incitement. guillaumeb May 2015 #8

How is what she did any different than any other hate group? beam me up scottie May 2015 #11

Many hate groups and speakers use the same tactics. guillaumeb May 2015 #16

How does she differ from Westboro Baptist, which took it's attacks directly to the victims and did Bluenorthwest May 2015 #19

Show me where the Westboro baptist Church called for attacks on gays, guillaumeb May 2015 #21

When did Geller tell her followers to attack muslims? beam me up scottie May 2015 #24

check my post 23 guillaumeb May 2015 #27

What would you prevent her from saying or doing? beam me up scottie May 2015 #29

And yet you just said this when asked how she differs from Westboro Baptist: Bluenorthwest May 2015 #36

Geller is smart enough to know how far she can go. guillaumeb May 2015 #47

No, we just don't believe islam deserves special treatment. beam me up scottie May 2015 #50

"incited to violence"? beam me up scottie May 2015 #25

You tell me that the shit on their picket signs was not incitement? Are you serious? Bluenorthwest May 2015 #32

I guess you were right, Blue. It is different when it's about lgbt people. beam me up scottie May 2015 #34

The people pulling this 'religion must not be insulted' shit all get very angry when asked about Bluenorthwest May 2015 #38

If Geller had hidden behind religion they wouldn't be freaking out like this. beam me up scottie May 2015 #42

That is the fact. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #46

They're too busy telling us we support Geller. beam me up scottie May 2015 #48

No, they'll go right back to DEFENDING hate speech wrapped in dogma. PeaceNikki May 2015 #49

All right, now it's ON. beam me up scottie May 2015 #52

Stop reading my thoughts! I see your drones! PeaceNikki May 2015 #55

If they wanted to defeat Geller, they'd shut the fuck up and take lessons. Who ya gunna call? Bluenorthwest May 2015 #57

Some here are so obsessively defensive of Islam and Christianity that it blinds all sense of reason. PeaceNikki May 2015 #61

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #84

Not an incitement as per the law. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #99

There were counter protests in which heteros particpated, even school kids, but not enough. merrily May 2015 #83

This was eventually true, but it took years and it was in fact a school kid whose counter picket Bluenorthwest May 2015 #121

Again, nowhere near enough, but there were merrily May 2015 #129

How do you know they didn't "try to provoke a riot" but Geller did? beam me up scottie May 2015 #20

Geller saw what happened in Denmark and France. guillaumeb May 2015 #23

What tactics did she use that should be prohibited? beam me up scottie May 2015 #28

there may be nothing criminally she can be charged with notadmblnd May 2015 #37

Thank you. beam me up scottie May 2015 #40

The Garland Police knew of the threats, the FBI had notified them of numerous threats GGJohn May 2015 #43

The guy in Denmark was inspired by Geller. notadmblnd May 2015 #33

Except of course that the limits on "incitement" are quite specific. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #97

Sorry, but Ms. Geller didn't incite those 2 asswipes to attack that event, GGJohn May 2015 #14

So you feel Geller had zero intent to provoke? guillaumeb May 2015 #17

Have you read some of the stuff Westboro Baptist says about lgbt people? beam me up scottie May 2015 #22

Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Behind the Aegis May 2015 #89

And lawd knows they never incited any violence... beam me up scottie May 2015 #90

What would be REALLY interesting... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #91

I don't think that would be healthy. beam me up scottie May 2015 #92

I know what you mean, but I did write this... Behind the Aegis May 2015 #93

That is very good, a perspective from someone who knows what it's like to be targeted. beam me up scottie May 2015 #94

But they have incited some amusing responses NobodyHere May 2015 #123

LMAO!!! Those are hilarious! beam me up scottie May 2015 #124

You did not actually respond to my question. guillaumeb May 2015 #106

What? That she meant to provoke? OF COURSE SHE MEANT TO PROVOKE. beam me up scottie May 2015 #118

Of course she provokes, which isn't illegal, GGJohn May 2015 #26

"intent to provoke" is not what is meant by the incitement limitation of free speech. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #100

Legally, that argument is full of shit. X_Digger May 2015 #39

And if she incites somebody to go out and kill a Muslim, she can be held accountable. Igel May 2015 #102

Nice speech wouldn't need to be guaranteed. ileus May 2015 #10

Exactly. beam me up scottie May 2015 #12

Yep. hifiguy May 2015 #112

so what? ibegurpard May 2015 #13

Yeah, that's the thing people tend to miss, or misunderstand. cherokeeprogressive May 2015 #18

The author doesn't claim that calling out racists is unconstitutional Not water May 2015 #35

That's exactly what you are supposed to do, and what other populations targeted by hateful Bluenorthwest May 2015 #44

Sing it Blue! beam me up scottie May 2015 #45

None of them can answer for it. They can't even manage to explain why, if they are opposed to Bluenorthwest May 2015 #54

Well when the pope uses hate speech it's okay because...god and stuff. beam me up scottie May 2015 #58

It's a very revealing subject. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #60

When muslims try to shoot people it's because they were REALLY FUCKING PROVOKED!!! beam me up scottie May 2015 #62

Excellent thread. GGJohn May 2015 #15

Maybe she should speak less critical of those that behead and murder innocents seveneyes May 2015 #41

Hate speech is protected speech. guillaumeb May 2015 #53

You left many pointed, direct questions unanswered upthread so posting down here looks craven. Bluenorthwest May 2015 #56

I will cravenly direct you to Brandenberg v. Ohio. guillaumeb May 2015 #64

Free clue: IMMINENT. You don gots it. n/t X_Digger May 2015 #70

One of us "don gots it" to use your phrasing. guillaumeb May 2015 #105

"imminent lawless action" -- notice that word, again? X_Digger May 2015 #107

Can I assume that you did NOT actually read my link? guillaumeb May 2015 #108

I've read Brandenberg multiple times, thanks. X_Digger May 2015 #109

Still no response to my questions? guillaumeb May 2015 #110

Lol, keep trying. You're not getting anywhere, but you look funny trying. X_Digger May 2015 #111

That is a correct reading and interpretation hifiguy May 2015 #113

Finally, someone explains it in a way that poster will understand. beam me up scottie May 2015 #115

You have yet to point out where she did anything illegal. beam me up scottie May 2015 #59

she skirts the illegal guillaumeb May 2015 #66

So she hasn't done anything to actually incite her followers to violence. beam me up scottie May 2015 #69

Geller incited with her non-protected speech. As a result, people died. guillaumeb May 2015 #103

Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. beam me up scottie May 2015 #114

Your version of incitement accepts the "heckler's veto" Jim Lane May 2015 #119

Thank you, Jim Lane. beam me up scottie May 2015 #120

It doesn't matter who her rhetoric is directed at - it matters whether it is illegal or not Yo_Mama May 2015 #117

^^^THIS^^^ beam me up scottie May 2015 #126

Welcome to DU, Not water! calimary May 2015 #63

may i suggest the 9th amend for your reading pleasure, Cryptoad May 2015 #65

I'm not so sure about that anymore. Gman May 2015 #67

so basically any time anyone says something that they know will piss someone else off Warren DeMontague May 2015 #73

First off, that is not a metaphor Gman May 2015 #80

So when is the last time it was used? Warren DeMontague May 2015 #87

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #86

I don't think that means what you think it means. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #101

Cue the "Butbutbut" brigade. Warren DeMontague May 2015 #68

Nope, they're falling all over this thread to explain why hate speech against religious groups beam me up scottie May 2015 #71

And can you imagine how much better these arguments would go for people offended by her Warren DeMontague May 2015 #76

The best way to prove she's wrong is to not shoot at her group. beam me up scottie May 2015 #77

it's not about hate speech, it's about the idiotic left/dem certainot May 2015 #72

Every right has limits. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor "Hi, Jack! " in an airport. Hekate May 2015 #74

There are some states that have laws on the books about "fighting words".... Spitfire of ATJ May 2015 #75

If you have to win the argument by using government to silence the other side bluestateguy May 2015 #78

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #79

Volokh :puke: Hate speech and "fighting words" ARE the same. Matthew Shephard. merrily May 2015 #81

Matthew Shepard was murdred, not insulted. Murder is against the law. What happened to him was Bluenorthwest May 2015 #122

I know he was murdered and I was not equating killing someone with insulting someone. merrily May 2015 #128

So, by all means, hate away. 6000eliot May 2015 #85

Kick Warren DeMontague May 2015 #88

From the ACLU: beam me up scottie May 2015 #95

+1 reddread May 2015 #96

Thank You Warren DeMontague May 2015 #125

And for all you people using the "Fire in a crowded theather" analogy Lee-Lee May 2015 #98

How about "a dirty bomb to wipe out half the liberals in Fresno"? reddread May 2015 #127