Off-Topic: Clarification just for Phil
(Lake Martin Specific)
111,143 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,605 messages
Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,169 messages
Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,260 messages
Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
Lake Martin Photo Gallery





    
Welcome, Guest Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]
Name:   phil The author of this post is registered as a member - Email Member
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.

 

 

Other messages in this thread:View Entire Thread
Clarification just for Phil - architect - 2/4/2021 9:37:28 AM
     Clarification just for Phil - phil - 2/4/2021 9:48:10 AM
     Glad you agree with my assessment Phil - architect - 2/4/2021 12:59:17 PM
          Glad you agree with my assessment Phil - phil - 2/4/2021 1:22:37 PM
          Hey you sniveling little b!tch - Lifer - 2/4/2021 1:31:11 PM
               Hey you sniveling little b!tch - phil - 2/4/2021 1:36:01 PM



Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos




About Us
Contact Us
Site Map
Search Site
Advertise With Us
   
www.LakeMartin.com
THE LAKE MARTIN WEBSITE

Copyright 2024, Lakes Online
Privacy    |    Legal