Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fwdude

There are limits to the 1st Amendment. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is one. Speaking out in a way that incites a riot is another.

Back in 1992 I supported, and still support, the idea that Maxine Waters and others should have been held criminally responsible for her part in inciting the Rodney King riots. The same is true for Al Sharpton and the Freddies Fashion Mart murder.

Had there been Trayvon Martin riots last month I would have supported arresting Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and many others on the Left (including in the press) for incitement.

So this Lively situation needs more context and details. If he was actively drumming up violence he should be held accountable for any repercussions. Emphasis on “actively”, of course.


11 posted on 08/21/2013 11:35:17 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: tanknetter

“There are limits to the 1st Amendment. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is one.”

Unless there is a fire, I suppose? Rodney King? I was working nights, and saw the first time the video “beating” was aired. Quite different from what aired a couple hours later!


16 posted on 08/21/2013 12:25:36 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: tanknetter

Those are excellent examples. And yes, we definitely need more information.


17 posted on 08/21/2013 12:26:09 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: tanknetter
There are limits to the 1st Amendment. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is one. Speaking out in a way that incites a riot is another.

You are wrong. The 1st Amendment is a restriction on Congress.
The crowded theater scenario was part of a USSC ruling regarding the first amendment basically saying that the it doesn't absolutely constrain congress. This was in order to justify prosecution of anti-draft literature/fliers in WWI, which is exactly the sort of political speech the founding fathers had in mind. — Basically this ruling is the same thing that Wickard was: refusal to smack down an overreaching Congress.

29 posted on 08/21/2013 8:01:51 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson