It's not the shouting of fire in a crowded theater that is the risky act ~ it's the shouting of fire WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE in a crowded theater. Otherwise, with a fire present, it's probably more murderous to NOT shout FIRE.
With 1.4 billion people already held captive by several ill-considered permutations of Islam the theater is burning to the ground.
Great post. Thank you.
They would rather ban the burning of a book, then face the reality of Islam. That reality is Muslims do not yell fire in a crowded theater. They yell, Allah Akbar.
Perfectly stated. I agree 100% and have posted similar comments here in the past few days. But you have said it better than I.
To make this “shouting fire” analogy work more better, Breyer should add that if a portion of the crowd in the theater has previously threatened to start their own fires if anyone shouts fire in the theater, it might be a bit closer. But still no banana.
Banning an action just because it might cause others to take actions that might threaten public safety is more than a slippery slope, especially if Breyer bases the ruling on the first amendment. The 1st, as written, forbids Congress from passing certain defined laws; it doesn’t ban citizens from acting.
Precisely. Please take this moron's job.
If it is a matter of criminal law, then it is the duty of the legislative body that has jurisdiction to craft and pass the appropriate law. If they want to make it a federal crime, then it is up to Congress to pass the law. If it is a local matter, then local legislatures would have to address it. In any case, the courts have nothing to do with crafting and passing the laws. Now that is in the Constitution.