In one of the more quotable (and quoted) scenes in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Dennis, a 37 year old gatherer of filth, frustrates King Arthur with a long-winded explanation of the workings of his anarcho-syndicalist commune.
"Lying in court under oath, aka perjury, is an exception. So are slander, libel, intimidation, and incitement."
Actually,these are not excepted in the first amendment, you are free to do any of these, however, you are not free from the responsibility of saying such things.
Agreed, you still have to take responsibility, but you can still say it and do it. I think the point should be clarified, or we will continue to have the John Kerry's say people need to be gagged before they can say it.
Great one Peter. Our rights are all under attack, but none more so than the ones protected by the First and Second Amendments. There are too many, not just domestically, but internationally, who wish to see free speech curtailed.
I do agree with Rodney - laws cannot prevent you *saying* something; that would violated the First Amendment. They can, however, punish you for harm caused by what you say. This is where Walz, and so many others, are mistaken in trotting out the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" trope. They claim it is a "legal test," but it is not. It is not a test, law, or precedent. Most don't know, it was just something stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his written *opinion* (not ruling) on the Schenck v United States (1919) case. You absolutely *CAN* yell fire in a crowded theater - just be prepared to face the consequence if anyone is hurt.
*as a side note, as if to emphasize it for me, Jamal Bowman pulled the fire alarm in the House of Representatives office building and faced no consequences
Just to continue down the semantic path... no law can prevent you from doing something. Murder, rape, robbery, theft, battery... none prevent the act. They all punish the act.
1A is a legal defense for speech, i.e. a protection against and override of lesser laws that would punish people for speaking. It applies to misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. It doesn't apply to incitement, perjury, intimidation, slander, and libel.
Agreed. And that last list are all "harms" for which someone can be punished (if such harm can be proven).
If I recall, the Schenck case itself was about incitement via distribution of pamphlets/flyers containing anti-American rhetoric (but it's been a while since I went over Holmes' opinion).
"Lying in court under oath, aka perjury, is an exception. So are slander, libel, intimidation, and incitement."
Actually,these are not excepted in the first amendment, you are free to do any of these, however, you are not free from the responsibility of saying such things.
Nominally, but you know what I mean. You cannot present a 1A defense against perjury or the others.
Agreed, you still have to take responsibility, but you can still say it and do it. I think the point should be clarified, or we will continue to have the John Kerry's say people need to be gagged before they can say it.
Great one Peter. Our rights are all under attack, but none more so than the ones protected by the First and Second Amendments. There are too many, not just domestically, but internationally, who wish to see free speech curtailed.
I do agree with Rodney - laws cannot prevent you *saying* something; that would violated the First Amendment. They can, however, punish you for harm caused by what you say. This is where Walz, and so many others, are mistaken in trotting out the "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" trope. They claim it is a "legal test," but it is not. It is not a test, law, or precedent. Most don't know, it was just something stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his written *opinion* (not ruling) on the Schenck v United States (1919) case. You absolutely *CAN* yell fire in a crowded theater - just be prepared to face the consequence if anyone is hurt.
*as a side note, as if to emphasize it for me, Jamal Bowman pulled the fire alarm in the House of Representatives office building and faced no consequences
Just to continue down the semantic path... no law can prevent you from doing something. Murder, rape, robbery, theft, battery... none prevent the act. They all punish the act.
1A is a legal defense for speech, i.e. a protection against and override of lesser laws that would punish people for speaking. It applies to misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech. It doesn't apply to incitement, perjury, intimidation, slander, and libel.
Agreed. And that last list are all "harms" for which someone can be punished (if such harm can be proven).
If I recall, the Schenck case itself was about incitement via distribution of pamphlets/flyers containing anti-American rhetoric (but it's been a while since I went over Holmes' opinion).