Why should I be arrested if I yell fire? Shouldn't my right to free speech trump everything else?

why should I be arrested if I yell fire? Shouldn't my right to free speech trump everything else?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

You're inciting panic and leading to potential mass injury.

so what? it's not my fault if people panic, that's their free choice to panic and I shouldn't be responsible.

>why should I be arrested if I shoot you in the face? Shouldn't my right to free speech trump everything else?

>someone yells fire out of nowhere when the alarms aren't going off and there's no sign of a fire
you'll just get told to shut the fuck up

He's not inciting anything. He's saying words.
How you react to words is your own responsibility, not his.

wait a minute, are you trying to jew me out of rights again?

Because people need to be able to trust you.
Are you saying that people should trust each other less?
"Fire! There's a fire!"
>This man wouldn't be lying because if he is then he'd be going to jail

Is yelling "fire" illegal even if there is a fire?
That would still incite panic.

>Because people need to be able to trust you
No they don't.
You're not obligated to trust anyone, and trusting anyone isn't necessarily for anything you can actually define or identify at all.

>why should I be arrested if I yell "this is a robbery" in a bank? Shouldn't my right to free speech trump everything else?

>"Look out a car's gonna hit you!"
>Dive away and break ankle
>"LOL that's your fault why do you listen to everything people say?"

The fact that you think you're articulating something invalid is actually ridiculous.

>yell that
>get tazed
retard

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of speaking freely. If you yell fire in an empty theater, nothing happenes, but if you yell in a crowded theater and people panic, you're commiting a crime

You're retarded and a tripfag

>murder the 3 year old who says he's gonna kill you because he spoke words you receive as a threat
csb, kys

the president was set in the court case Schenck v, United states that if the speech presents a clear and present danger(under the clear and present danger clause), then no your speech is not protected by the first amendment. Don't like it? well you can submit a case to the SCOTUS about how your rights are being violated and i at least 4 of the current justices see your case as worth while, they could potentially overrule Schenck v United States

>Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of speaking freely
I agree but being arrest by state/federal government is different from saying "nigger" to a black guy and getting punched. You are being punished for speaking by the State

How people react to words is their own responsibility. If you use violence against someone for speaking words who hasn't actually done anything at all, you've morally fucked up.

jfc you're an idiot

just yell kike!!!! and see what happens.

>words hurt xD
kys

Holmes can off himself.
It's an absolutely arbitrary criterion.

You need help with your junior college philosophy class?

You're not being punished for speaking though, you are yelling fire in a theater, your intent is to cause panic. You won't be oenalised if there is actually a fire

So we should ban degenerate art?

>your intent
You're not in a position to judge intent.

regardless of how arbitrary it is, it is the law of the land and adequately answers why in the United States not all forms of speech are protected by the 1st amendment due to previously set precedents

I'm omitting sound waves at a particular frequency and pitch, then I'm dragged away by policemen and locked in a cage like an animal

really?

>it's not my fault if people panic

It literally is your fault

And you deserve it

>you're not being punished for speaking though, you're insulting the elite, your intent is to cause dissent.

Why should anyone care about arbitrary rules put on paper by worthless sociopathic fleshbags?
There's no moral correspondence.
The purported "legitimacy" of law is in this country supposed to be given by "we the people", but I haven't given anything.
In the end, though, you'll be judged by God just like everyone else.

>It literally is your fault
no because I'm not forcing anyone to stampede like a pack of bison, all I did was say something and then from that point it's their responsibility for how they react

You're absolutely right.
People like don't understand moral agency or culpability *at all*.

I can't tell if this is some kind of faggoty sarcastic argument to try to convince us that "hate speech is not free speech"

It's a real position.
You have to have an absolutely philosophically absurd conception of moral responsibility to maintain people saying words is legitimate moral grounds to physically assault them.

what do you fucking think. its someone telling you you shouldnt be allowed to be critical of anything anyone says using the one thing you cant say in America.

there is always a line. this is just reality kid.

The line is at physicality or it's nowhere.

>impersonating an officer
This is basically the same principle I can't imagine you think this should be legal.

>why should I be arrested if I yell fire?
Yelling fire in a crowded theatre was hypothetical example cited by the supreme court when it upheld a conviction of a man who was passing out pamphlets arguing against the US involvement in WWI.`

But you are fully aware what will happen.
You know what will happen as a consequence of your actions, you are directly responsible.
Just because other people are involved doesn't mean you get to shed all responsibility for doing things.

If I shoot someone is it my fault they bleed out?
Why don't they just choose not to bleed out?
Or patch up the wound?

mental abuse is directly conenected to health issues. you may think words cant hurt you physically but they can and do. depression can lead to a lot of other actual physical problems. so you have the right to defend yourself against such abuse. kill yourself.

Here is the case en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

In case any of you faggots are actually curious.

>If I shoot someone is it my fault they bleed out?
yes because you shot them and there is only one thing that happens after someone is shot-- they bleed out and die. so there is a direct line of causality but that's not the same as me saying fire, because people can interpret that speech a million different ways.

funny part is it's not exactly illegal

wtf I love yelling fire in the theater now.

How you respond to the world is on you.
It's why some soliders get fucked up and others are completely unphased after witnessing the exact same thing. Other people being mentally weak is *THEIR* problem that *THEY* need to fix for themselves. A person cannot cause another person mental issues by speech - a person can only respond to speech in such a way that they fuck themselves up.

talk shit get hit kiddo. I know you think you live in Disneyland but we live in the real world over here.

Have fun at judgment bro.
Weak hedonistic collectivist tools get what's comin'~

>if you show a lefty some statistics and they panic you commit a crime

But why didn't they just avoid the bullet?
Why didn't they just patch themselves up?

If you yell fire in a crowded theatre it is a resonable expectation that the people will all attempt to get out of the theatre.
You have to be mentally deficient to not be capable of making that link, yelling something like fire indicates that there's a fire, the automatic response from Humans is to avoid burning to death.

Just as if I shoot someone it is likely they will die.
They might dodge my bullet
They might stop the bleeding
Just like everyone might not try to get out of the theatre.

You won't be arrested for yelling fire. You'll be arrested if you yell fire and somebody is injured because you led directly to it.

It's no different than me, in a large group, telling people to go kill the nearest colored they say. That's not technically illegal, but if some of the people immediately go do it, I was inciting them to violence and will thus be arrested.

You caused physical damage to their body.
The damage they receive is not affected by how they react to it, like it is when it comes to mental states in how people respond to words.
You can think "ah he shot me nbd" all you want - your body was still caused damage by the shooter. Contrast this with "ah he said there was a fire I don't believe him and there are exits right there anyway" - what happens is *ENTIRELY* your reaction, because nothing has been done to you at all.

1) "worthless sociopathic fleshbags"...name calling is no way to legitimize an argument
2) "why should anyone care about arbitrary rules put on paper"...are you legitimately asking why people should respect the law. If you are it is to maintain order and act as a guide for what a society is willing to accept as socially acceptable behavior behavior.
3) The law is given by "we the people". America is not a direct democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Americans vote or people to vote for them. Federal Judges are picked by elected officials, which were chosen by "we the people", so if you have voted for anyone in congress or the President, you have given something.
4)"you be judged by god"... the court system is a secular entity, no need to bring religion into this. Yes there is usually a bible present when people swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but it is not required as that would be the government forcing a religion onto people which is banned due to the establishment clause in the first amendment claiming "“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... ."

this nigger thinks people dont get into fights. you are a pussy ass faggot. no witnesses no crime. People knock faggots like you out all the time and get away scott free. you dont live in the real world.

It's entirely your reaction to not avoid the bullet.
How about an alternate example, like me punching someone in the face?

It's not my fault they didn't block or dodge!
It's ENTIRELY their reaction to not do one of those things.

Free Speech must incite imminent lawless action for it to be illegal; Otherwise it's legal
We are done here

cool trip guy

It is part of the argument - it's pointing out that other people are worthless. *ALL* people are worthless. And worthiness can't come from worthless things - creations of worthless beings are themselves worthless, and that includes all man-made law.

>are you legitimately asking why people should respect the law
ABSOLUTELY I am - I see no reason whatsoever to respect law. Law only deserves *DERISION* as far as I see it, since it utterly violates all principles of voluntary human interaction or reciprocity.

>If you are it is to maintain order and act as a guide for what a society is willing to accept as socially acceptable behavior behavior
It does neither. It promotes absolute disorder, and promulgates an idea of what is "acceptable" that is morally reprehensible - namely that it is okay to *VIOLENTLY VIOLATE ANOTHER PERSON* so long as you've got a badge or some arcane law "backing" your activities.

I support and have supported no one politically, so I've given nothing.

Religion is the crux of everything. When the life bleeds out from each and every one of our weak pathetic bodies, we're all judged. And we're not judged by the worthless, arbitrary whims of other men who only toil for themselves - we're judge by an Almighty Omniscient God who knows each and every thought that's ever even crossed your mind.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not illegal. The notion originates from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919 which had to do with free speech regarding the US draft.

It never had been illegal and nobody has ever been tried for it.

WOW OP, DID YOU KNOW THAT IT'S ILLEGAL TO SHOWER NAKED IN FLORIDA?

>guess how often it's enforced

Woah you really made me think with your great point man!

>But why didn't they just avoid the bullet?
the mechanics of that are impossible, so it is correct to place blame on the person who caused an unavoidable event

>How about an alternate example, like me punching someone in the face?
there is only one outcome of punching someone in the face-- they get punched in the face and feel pain.

yelling fire has hundreds or thousands of outcomes and it's not the same kind of unavoidable mechanical event like a bullet or a punch, it depends entirely on the conscious reaction of the people who are in no way placed in a 1-outcome scenario

jews run our courts and write our laws so we tend to be hypocrites

I'm not obligated to dodge the bullet. You're obligated to not shoot me.
I'm not obligated to say or not say anything. You're obligated to not be mentally pathetic such that words hurt you.

Freedom of opinion=/= freedom to knowingly deceive.
And sure you can deconstruct that with both facile and ridiculous examples, which is not intelligent or insightful, any retard could and in fact you might have to be one. But you can as easily do that with any law, and become no different than the jews who try to deconstruct everything.
We need those "vague" and "arbitrary" definitions and rules to keep society going. Fuck you.

A quick google search confirms that "yelling fire in a crowded area" is not, in itself illegal. However, if it's found that you did so in the attempt to disrupt public order or incite a riot, you may be written a ticket or further investigated.

>We need those "vague" and "arbitrary" definitions and rules to keep society going
t. absolutely uncritical bootlicking retard who couldn't produce a novel thought if he were given a thousand years to do so

>there is only one outcome of punching someone in the face-- they get punched in the face and feel pain.

There are thousands of possible outcomes.
The most likely one is the one you posited.
Do you honestly believe that if I went around and attempted to punch everyone in the world in the face that there would be no other outcome?
Them getting punched will be the majority outcome of course, but it's unreasonable to say that it is an impossibility no one will do anything different.

This is the point I am attempting to make, the bullet one was shit I admit.
Punching is a better example.
Almost every action technically has a ludicrous number of possiblities based on factors you cannot control.
But, there is always a most likely outcome, this is what we perform actions based on.
The most likely outcome of yelling fire in a crowded theatre is that everyone will attempt to escape, yes it is possible that other things could happen but that doesn't make people escaping any less likely or you any less responsible if someone is hurt as a result.

You have to be mentally deficient to not be able to figure out in your head that someone might get hurt if everyone panics.

When did I imply that words hurt?
People can say what they like.
All I'm arguing is that you are indeed responsible if someone gets hurt when you yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Arguing if you are or are not responsible doesn't mean I feel you are or are not allowed to say such a thing.

>But, there is always a most likely outcome, this is what we perform actions based on
No.
That's not the case.
Either x is true in the future or x is not true in the future. That goes for every proposition - either true (100%) or false (0). "Likelihoods" are an illogical myth.

But user this is just fucking wrong. If you throw a punch at someone's face, you don't know for certain that the outcome will be that they take the punch and are in pain. You don't know what the outcome for you will be if you make that attempt.

Also there are ID's on Sup Forums you don't need a trip.

Actually, you're a retard if you can't understand the purpose of wording laws loosely so that they can be interpreted and changed over time to fit societal need.

It's not much different from libel/slander. A core component is spreading information knowing it's false and would lead to panic in a public place. It's not illegal to yell fire if there is actually is a fire, nor is illegal to yell fire if there isn't a fire, but you sincerely thought there was.

>All I'm arguing is that you are indeed responsible if someone gets hurt when you yell fire in a crowded theatre
No. You're not.
People are responsible for their own actions.
I am responsible if I punch someone in the face, because I punched someone in the face.
I am responsible for shouting "fire" in a theater if I shout "fire" in a theater.
I am *NOT* responsible for whatever a person does or doesn't do after I punch them.
I am *NOT* responsible for what other people do after I shout "fire" in a theater.

PEOPLE CAN ONLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER IT IS PEOPLE DO. PEOPLE CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHER AUTONOMOUS MORAL AGENTS.

>"But user this is just fucking wrong"
>proceed to make my own point
What am I wrong about...?

If there is or isn't fire in a theater, no one can tell until after the fact. You don't have time to check for a fire. Thus the only response is to run because a. you've been startled, and b. you've got to either trust in the person who startled you, or potentially burn to death.

Starting a stampede is illegal. You can coat this however you want, but starting a stampede is illegal. Offense doesn't hurt. Being trampled to death does. There is no difference, legally or morally, between firing a gun in a theater and causing panic and shouting fire in a theater and causing panic.

A group of humans cannot be held accountable for panicked reactions. If a nuclear bomb went off in the distance, causing me to panic, swerve, and hit someone's car on the road, I didn't just commit a crime. It is the person who detonated the nuclear bomb who committed the (war) crime.

I know why laws are worded loosely - it's so the ruling class can get away with whatever they want and post-justify it because of the ambiguity of the statutes they set themselves up to operate upon.

The fact that you said that likelihoods are an "illogical myth".

If you punch 1,000 people in the face, you determine mathematically what the likelihood of certain outcomes are in the future.

Libel/slander shouldn't be responded to with violence either.
You're not legitimate in violating someone because they lie to or about you.

the only case where someone doesn't get hurt from you throwing punches is when the person unconsciously dodges your punch because it's a split-second event. It's good to blame the person throwing the punch if the outcome depends on an unconscious split-second reaction.

If I yell fire, people don't have a split-second to decide, they can make a deliberate and conscious decision. The most-likely outcome only comes from visual information, like actually seeing the fire, or feeling it, or smelling the smoke, etc.

Really, you know that for a fact? Do you have any proof?

I was under the impression the clear and present danger had to include the person, the time, and place. Then again, I haven't studied anything relating to law for fun for quite a while.

>I am *NOT* responsible for what other people do after I shout "fire" in a theater.

If that's the case then saying "I'm going to kill you" to someone on the street is perfectly fine?

>my mommy tells me I'm special and gives me tendies. I have no concept of personal responsibility.

>If you punch 1,000 people in the face, you determine mathematically what the likelihood of certain outcomes are in the future
No you don't, because the problem of induction.
But you're a nitwit and don't even know what that is. But that's ok - you'll go to google, misunderstand it, and come back and argue incredibly poorly based on a lack of understanding!

Out government is corrupt. Gratz on finally realizing that.

The American way is pretty damn good OP, and that's no inciting violence in public nor causing a panic.

Luckily for the most part our courts are honorable enough not to call making niggers mad "calling for violence".

i am confused by the paradoxical nature of your argument. Man made law is worthless because it was made by worthless beings and nothing of worth can be created by something that it self does not have worth. would this not make your god worthless as according to you all people are worthless and we are a creation of god, therefore god cannot create something of worth, making himself worthless. If you do not respect the law made by man because they are worthless, why would you respect the law of some omnipotent being that through the transitive property is equally worthless as the man he created?
Also i you give nothing, you shall receive nothing, try participating once in a while if something upsets you, you might like the results

People would just look at you weirdly and wouldn't run unless they actually saw the fire.

>btfo

>Thus the only response is to run
No. That's not the only response.
Would you like me to demonstrate the literal infinite number of other responses one could have for your little uncritical brain?

If you walk up to a man and say "I'm going to kill you you", and then he shoots you because he feared for his life. Who's in the wrong?

Jailing isn't violence. There is no civilized country where libel and slander will get you anything besides jail time, fines, or community service.

Harmful lying is illegal. That goes for inciting panic, defaming someone, or deceiving customers. Lying =/= speech. Speech is an integral component of lying, but not necessarily the only method through which one can lie, nor the the most devastating.

Before performing an action I have no garuntee what will happen.
I do not know what will 100% happen.
Yes, only one thing WILL result.
But as you have said before, actions have thousands of possible outcomes.

However it is easy to create a resonable expected outcome, the one that has the highest probablity of happening.
Based on factors you know, you can determine what is likely, I know water is wet, I know water makes things wet, I can say with resonable certainty that if I put a random object in water it will get wet.

But it's entirely possible that something else could happen based on factors I was unaware of.

No, but it's what I'm going with.
I know you wouldn't believe your benevolent overlords do things to fuck you over and help themselves, but I wouldn't put it past them. There's no reason whatsoever for me to give people who use violence as their primary mode of interaction with people the benefit of the doubt.

Are you 12? Only an edgy teen would argue this.