Well here is the rundown of my beliefs on this: If there should be any restriction on speech to deal with imminent threats, it should be through constitutional amendment, and not an overpowered branch of Government (because the Federalists foolishly thought they would be in power to always control the judiciary so they ignored the anti-federalist's fears about it) which gave itself the power to start "interpreting" the constitution whichever way it wanted.
For example, I find it very depressing when people constantly quote "don't shout fire in a crowded theater" when a Judge basically used that as an excuse originally for Wilson's unconstitutional actions during WW1 to suppress domestic dissent.
Ultimately I see no reason this trend will not continue over the decades until really there is nothing left on rights but pieces of paper with too many exceptions (and in many ways I feel like it is already at that point).
By then, the Chinese will be ultimately better off than Americans because they will hold no illusions that they are free compared to Americans.
But regardless, I am aware this is an extremely fringe and controversial opinion to take, I just wanted to lay it out on the table.
>The one guy who was making fun of glowposters is the only one who gets v8'd
It is genuinely hilarious the more I think about it.
"Fire in a crowded theatre" was
Schenck v United States (concerning Wilson's 1917 Espionage Act), which was overturned in
Brandenburg v Ohio over half a century ago. The current case law doesn't accept that argument, just "imminent lawless action". A constitutional amendment to make that clear would be a good idea, but it's a very narrow definition.
To give an idea of what Brandenburg was acquitted for in 1969:
Clarence Brandenburg, a
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural
Ohio, contacted a reporter at a
Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in
Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.
[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "
Niggers," "
Jews," and those who supported them and also claimed that "
our President, our
Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white,
Caucasian race," and announced plans for a march on Washington to take place on the
Fourth of July.
[10] Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.
[11]
Basing case law on
stare decisis is the entire concept of common law dating back to Alfred the Great, though it must be compatible with the Constitution.
