Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Actress Cindy Lee Garcia sues over Innocence of Muslims [View all]eppur_se_muova
(42,654 posts)31. Protected speech means you cannot be enjoined from expressing it.
You can, however, be punished after you say it. This is what Near vs Minnesota was all about.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
283 U.S. 697
Near v. Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
No. 91 Argued: January 30, 1931 --- Decided: June 1, 1931
1. A Minnesota statute declares that one who engages "in the business of regularly and customarily producing, publishing," etc., "a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical," is guilty of a nuisance, and authorizes suits, in the name of the State, in which such periodicals may be abated and their publishers enjoined from future violations. In such a suit, malice may be inferred from the fact of publication. The defendant is permitted to prove, as a defense, that his publications were true and published "with good motives and for justifiable ends." Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as a contempt. Held unconstitutional, as applied to publications charging neglect of duty and corruption upon the part of law-enforcing officers of the State. Pp. 704, 709, 712, 722.
2. Liberty of the press is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. P. 707.
3. Liberty of the press is not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. P. 708.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota
283 U.S. 697
Near v. Minnesota
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
No. 91 Argued: January 30, 1931 --- Decided: June 1, 1931
1. A Minnesota statute declares that one who engages "in the business of regularly and customarily producing, publishing," etc., "a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical," is guilty of a nuisance, and authorizes suits, in the name of the State, in which such periodicals may be abated and their publishers enjoined from future violations. In such a suit, malice may be inferred from the fact of publication. The defendant is permitted to prove, as a defense, that his publications were true and published "with good motives and for justifiable ends." Disobedience of an injunction is punishable as a contempt. Held unconstitutional, as applied to publications charging neglect of duty and corruption upon the part of law-enforcing officers of the State. Pp. 704, 709, 712, 722.
2. Liberty of the press is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. P. 707.
3. Liberty of the press is not an absolute right, and the State may punish its abuse. P. 708.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Near_v._Minnesota
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Except that this situation is in no way like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
Llewlladdwr
Sep 2012
#3
Actually, both are examples of deliberate, malicious acts resulting in endangerment.
eppur_se_muova
Sep 2012
#4
so if I deem this repsonse as offensive, you will support me if I riot? It's just opinion nt
msongs
Sep 2012
#5
Do you assume that people in a theater ONLY panic, dangerously, when they hear 'fire'?
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2012
#8
Would there be such a thing as advertising if your position was reasonable? No. The reason there is
patrice
Sep 2012
#12
Well, yes, the article was about these "separate issues", though my opinions were broader.
eppur_se_muova
Sep 2012
#33
If she signed a release form, no matter what she claims, it won't hold water. read below...
Javaman
Sep 2012
#16
Not just the nature of the film, but the full script, and the genre of the film.
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#57
It will be the first and probably the last. If you are the parent of children who act, then you...
Javaman
Sep 2012
#15
If she signed a release form, she really doesn't have much of a case. here are the forms...
Javaman
Sep 2012
#14
"to the fullest extent that I may lawfully do so" ... interesting phrase.
eppur_se_muova
Sep 2012
#29
The form is a two way agreement. Seems that the 'producer's signature' was not
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#32
It is not a 'gray area' if he lied about his identity to them, there is NO contract
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2012
#40
If the porn scenes were shot later, when I wasn't there, I couldn't very well walk off the set
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#61
Are you saying porn films are solid sex from opening to end? There often are minor bits
uppityperson
Sep 2012
#68
Because this is the basis of the OP? Because she might have been filmed in something that
uppityperson
Sep 2012
#73
Well, excuse me for answering. Why such a nasty reply? Good grief. For sure I will stop
uppityperson
Sep 2012
#76
Did you read the article? The script she received had no mention of Mohammed or religion.
ehrnst
Sep 2012
#52
Her resume on IMDB and her profile on LinkedIn both have this movie as one of her credits
TexasBushwhacker
Sep 2012
#80