BF2S Forums Constitutional Amendment to Ban Funeral Protests

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

People in theaters were offended by yelling fire in them, and they did ban that.  Why aren't you up in arms about that?

Were they merely offended?  Or thrown into panic and chaos?  Those are two different things.  Nice try though.

Would you say that the ban is still relevant from a safety standpoint today?

Don't you think that safety standards are better and routes of egress are better designed now?

If so, why not advocate for the right to yell fire in a theater?

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Would you say that the ban is still relevant from a safety standpoint today?

Don't you think that safety standards are better and routes of egress are better designed now?

If so, why not advocate for the right to yell fire in a theater?

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/200 … after.html

Nope.  A crowd running from a fire would probably be more frantic than this one, so...you can figure it out.  Regardless, the exception is to any speech that would both likely and imminently cause lawless action.  Falsely yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater is merely the example for that.  That speech is not a protest, not a criticism, not much of anything, and according to SCOTUS, it serves no purpose other than to generate chaos and lawlessness.  I won't fight to defend that.

It's hard to say actually.  For example, I think we would've heard about more trampling in theaters due to fires if that's the case, since the ban implies that a crowd knowing a fire is in the theater would flee crazily.  I'm sure there have been fires in theaters since then, and so far, I haven't heard of any tramplings.

The Walmart example is probably a better indication of a new neurosis.  Back when the Constitution was written, people were deathly afraid of fire and had more reason to be afraid of it, since safety standards aren't what they are today.  Fires ravaged entire cities back then partially due to bad construction standards and a lack of sufficient emergency services.

Nowadays, we're more likely to trample each other over big sales, so maybe, this example is a good reason for setting certain rules regarding these things.  Proper crowd control is clearly needed, for example.

I would argue that funeral protests serve no purpose other than to amuse extremists.

Either way though...  A crowd's reaction to a fire isn't likely to be as hysterical today as it was back then -- especially when a clearly marked exit is within walking distance.

Nowadays, people are more likely to obsess over a sale.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/28/2008-11-28_worker_dies_at_long_island_walmart_after.html

Nope.  A crowd running from a fire would probably be more frantic than this one, so...you can figure it out.  Regardless, the exception is to any speech that would both likely and imminently cause lawless action.  Falsely yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater is merely the example for that.  That speech is not a protest, not a criticism, not much of anything, and according to SCOTUS, it serves no purpose other than to generate chaos and lawlessness.  I won't fight to defend that.

It's hard to say actually.  For example, I think we would've heard about more trampling in theaters due to fires if that's the case, since the ban implies that a crowd knowing a fire is in the theater would flee crazily.  I'm sure there have been fires in theaters since then, and so far, I haven't heard of any tramplings.

The Walmart example is probably a better indication of a new neurosis.  Back when the Constitution was written, people were deathly afraid of fire and had more reason to be afraid of it, since safety standards aren't what they are today.  Fires ravaged entire cities back then partially due to bad construction standards and a lack of sufficient emergency services.

Nowadays, we're more likely to trample each other over big sales, so maybe, this example is a good reason for setting certain rules regarding these things.  Proper crowd control is clearly needed, for example.

I would argue that funeral protests serve no purpose other than to amuse extremists.

Either way though...  A crowd's reaction to a fire isn't likely to be as hysterical today as it was back then -- especially when a clearly marked exit is within walking distance.

Nowadays, people are more likely to obsess over a sale.

Turquoise, the ban on 'Fire!' in a crowded theater is not for the case of an actual fire, but to falsely yell it solely to create chaos.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-10-07 13:08:34)

eleven bravo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

because it serves absolutely no purpose in the market place of ideas.  has no value.

neither do funeral protests.

these people are expressing their religious and political views in an area designated for free speech

eleven bravo wrote:

enough people believe it to form a tiny congregation

Turquoise wrote:

Assuming a real fire has occurred in a theater since then and someone has yelled fire during it, there would be incidents of tramplings during the fire to support the fear of yelling fire in a theater (falsely) causing tramplings.

Because this doesn't seemed to have happened, the basis for the ban would appear to be obsolete.

In other words, I could probably yell fire in a theater without having anyone get trampled or injured, shortly before my arrest.

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

enough people believe it to form a tiny congregation

That's small enough of a group with extreme enough views that I'm willing to limit their expression.  Admittedly, it can just as easily be done with state laws.

It's so nice that you're willing to deprive others of their freedoms.

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That's small enough of a group with extreme enough views that I'm willing to limit their expression.  Admittedly, it can just as easily be done with state laws.

It's so nice that you're willing to deprive others of their freedoms.

If they're hateful extremists...  I'm more than willing to deprive them or deport them for that matter.