So glad you guys included the MOST important part! The most often misquoted & misunderstood part of this statement, is that the speech MUST be untrue. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre is not inherently unprotected speech—IF it’s true! However, when it’s false & causes chaos, it is no longer considered protected speech. Saying “when there is no fire,” is the most crucial part here! 👏 The ACTUAL quote comes from the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court decision Schenck v. U.S., in which Justice Holmes Jr., stated: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre & causing a panic.” This established the "clear & present danger” standard, which has since been redefined & replaced by the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. This updated standard says speech may be considered unprotected if it’s likely to incite "imminent lawless action.” The standard “imminent lawless action", or the “Brandenburg test,” has 3 elements; “intent, imminence, & likelihood,” thereby establishing that speech CAN be limited if it’s likely to incite or produce immediate illegal activity or violence
1 month ago (edited) | 24
I thought it was hate speeches at first. This poll taught me a little more about the constitution than I knew before 💜
1 month ago | 1
The fact that the fire thing made it and the obvious didn’t is exactly why we’re dealing with this sht now😂💯
1 month ago | 0
Apparently, it's criticizing government officials. Easiest way to get the DOJ pointed at you now.
1 month ago | 1
They are all actually allowed. Just the fire part will get you tresspassed. If someone gets injured in the insuing exit, you can be civily sued.
1 month ago | 5
Yes, generally, criticizing government officials is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to criticize government officials and policies. This protection is particularly strong when it comes to political speech, which is considered at the heart of the First Amendment.
1 month ago | 2
True threats, incitement, fighting words, defamation, fraud, and obscenity.
1 month ago | 1
No, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, especially if false and causing panic, is not protected under the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects free speech, there are exceptions for speech that incites violence, creates a clear and present danger, or causes imminent lawless action. Falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater falls under these exceptions because it can cause panic, potentially leading to injuries or even deaths.
1 month ago | 5
Glad to see the majority have adequate reading comprehension skills and a basic understanding of the US constitution. 😂
1 month ago | 0
I can't believe how ignorant the younger generations are. 😢
1 month ago | 22
That's so funny how many people went with hate speech lol. Facts don't care about your feelings, so get over it.
1 month ago | 8
As worded, fine. But, many of these are dependent on specific context and whether it constitutes a threat or incites violence or illegal activity….
1 month ago | 1
Only 3% of us actually answered correctly holy buckets
1 month ago | 0
Daily Dose Of Crime
Which type of speech is NOT protected by the First Amendment?
1 month ago | [YT] | 193