Friday, August 25, 2017

What if there really "was" a wolf in a crowded theater?

Pelosi Explains: There is no constitutional right to assemble
 because you can't yell "wolf" in crowed theater. Who knew? 

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

such a boring blog

Anonymous said...


and THIS PICTURE IS SCARIER THAN SHIT.

even her wrinkles have wrinkles

Anonymous said...

The dream ticket has been announced for the Dems 2020. AL Franken and CA. Comedia

Anonymous said...

CA Senator Comedia Harris would naturally be the President with cuckold Alice Franken as VP.

Anonymous said...

Republican National Committee officially announces, We are not racists.
Why did they feel compelled to say that?

Anonymous said...

Was it because the Democratic Party has been tied for years to racists?

Anonymous said...

Democrats are also the party of pedophiles

wphamilton said...

what level of mixed metaphors means that the cuckoo clock is off her rocker?

Anonymous said...

We know why the violent antifa Democrats protesting wear masks but shouldn't Nancy be forced to too?

This is just torture and cruel and unusual punishment to the readers.

wphamilton said...

Uh oh, we've got a closet islamist extremist in our midst, wants to force poor Nancy to wear a chadri.

C.H. Truth said...

wants to force poor Nancy to wear a chadri.

I'd settle for a Freddie Kruger Halloween mask. Less likely to scare children.

Anonymous said...



i think ms. pelosi looks wonderful just the way she is. and those ischemic strokes she's been having are a gift. may she remain the democrat leader until her last breath.

Anonymous said...

Well OK, I'll just go back to feeding journalists

Anonymous said...

the punk line to so may political jokes is "Hillary"

Anonymous said...

So Nancy Polosi daddy helped dedicate a Robert E. LEE monument. Looks like she was 14 at the time.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The paraphrasing does not generally include (but does usually imply) the word falsely, i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Contents
The Schenck case Edit

Main article: Schenck v. United States
Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Anonymous said...

God you really are a stupid insufferable little prick.

commie said...

KD said...
God you really are a stupid I

Wow, very impressive for someone with as little crediblity and education as you, goat fucker.....

Commonsense said...

Schenck v. United States was pretty much overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio which introduced the immediate lawless action standard for speech to be suppressed.

Opposition to the draft does not provide an immediate danger as falsely shouting fire would.

It is obviously political speech.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Number 45 just pardoned a racist piece of s***. I'm sure it will meet up approval here. More beaners in jail the better rrb

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

When I look at that law I don't think that she is correct. In this case I think it's against the First Amendment I don't always agree with it with her no I do not. In fact I hope we can find somebody else in the younger generations and. And the Baby Boomers like me have done their job and we need to turn it over to next ones maybe even two two two generations down because right now f****** Republicans of going to screw the country up beyond belief.

Indy Voter said...

If it's Friday, then someone must be leaving the White House. And today's winner is ... Sebastian Gorka!

Not sure how many senior staff remain from seven months ago. Not many.

wphamilton said...

The family is still all there, and some Generals. Trump's gut doesn't need any advice anyway so staff isn't all that important.

Anonymous said...

Dem Nancy pelosi is cyotee ugly and she is not going anywhere. Thank God. No one is in the wings to defeat her .

Anonymous said...

Presididn't Sir Hillary Rotten Clinton.

Lol

Anonymous said...

Adios DACA.

Indy Voter said...

The generals weren't there seven months ago, WP.

Amused, James said...

What if there really was a Cohn in a crowded theater?

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - I think the bigger point is that this decision you are touting (Schenck), was actually overruled and therefor carries no legal weight in it's original form.

It's been replaced by the notion that speech can only be limited when it is designed to incite imminent lawless actions (for instance someone getting up on a podium and demanding that the crowd go burn down some buildings - or go kill some policemen). Even then, the speaker would have to be inciting imminent action (in other words, fairly immediate). Just saying it's something to do sometime in the future is not enough. It also has to be incitign the followers, not inciting reaction.

IOW... free speech cannot be limited because someone else might take offense to what you are saying and then commit a lawless act.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"I think the bigger point is that this decision you are touting (Schenck), was actually overruled and therefor carries no legal weight in it's original form."

I saw that.

And that's why I thought she was wrong.

After World War One, I have to dig it out, the Wilson administration passed a at least as I remember. Google soon, :-), some restrictions on the freedom of speech. The courts overturned it.

Pelosi is 100% incorrect.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Yes, going to go to Google and yeah it is very complicated. But from this http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/a-clear-and-present-danger.html and others, the freedom of speech is almost never restricted.

One thing that bothers me, although both of us agree that they are racist beyond repair, that some people want to declare the KKK as a terrorist organization. That could lead to restrictions on the freedom of speech.

And, yes, Palin was wronged, but I think that the right to sue reporters and/or their employers. is a slippery slope.

Commonsense said...

Freedom of speech is not a license to maliciously defame someone you don't like.

And based on the evidence presented so far, the New York Times did exactly that.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again HB.

Anonymous said...

liberals, did antifa "movement" get your message out the way you wanted?

Taliban, ISIS and liberals tear down monuments.

wphamilton said...

McMaster was about 7 months ago. Flynn, not even generals have holding power but that's what he's got. And his daughter for international business conferences of course ...

Indy Voter said...

McMaster came on board after Flynn was fired, which occurred in mid-February.

Excluding family members, the only senior staff I can think of that are still there are Miller, McGahn, and Huckabee-Sanders. And Huckabee-Sanders isn't in the role she was originally hired for.

The list of people who've already left is a lot longer than that. Flynn. McFarland. Gorka. Spicer. Priebus. Bannon. Dubke(sp?). Scaramucci (not on the original staff). I'm sure I'm missing some, especially from McMaster's staff.

McMaster and Kelly have been very positive additions. McMaster was a huge improvement over Flynn, and Kelly seems to have instilled some order to the chaos around the Oval Office. But the ultimate problem there is the guy who's actually responsible for the security of 300 million Americans is fundamentally irresponsible, and no amount of Kellys and McMasters is going to change that.

Anonymous said...

Indy did you vote for Hillary?

WP will not tell who he voted for,why,he did not tell us that either.

wphamilton said...

Kelly's done some clean-up you have to give him that. But with the great sucking vacuum at the top, emptiness in policy guidance, in political strategy, knowledge base, relevant experience, in everything down the line, any adviser or staff member that isn't a yes-man cheerleader is bound to be off-message and counter-purpose at some point. There's only so much a disciplinarian can do for that.

Though if you're still working down the list of advisers who weren't vetted, like the latest fired adviser Sebastian Gorker, maybe the bigger problem is who among all of them is worth keeping around? And does it really make much difference now whether someone who believes that a given religion is an existential threat to America still has Trump's ear?