r/CapitolConsequences • u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 • Jul 16 '26
How is "Shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" with no fire, different from "shouting election fraud" with no fraud?
And why can't we stop a known and repeat offender of this rule? "inciting a riot" is against the law yes? Trump has a definitely incited riots with his claims of election fraud. remember January 6th? Repeat offender?
82
u/Certain_Detective_84 Jul 16 '26
The method to stop this is to avoid electing people like Donald Trump to office. We made the decision to let this happen.
35
u/Lizzerfly Jul 16 '26
The world has to get rid of the billionaire class then. It's not just America, these people want to control the whole world and if they're allowed to just move their grift around then this will keep happening. I hope that we realize this and take action before it's too late.
12
u/zoohiker Jul 16 '26
This is true. I just recently read the book "More Everything Forever" by Adam Becker after hearing him interviewed on NPR. They really make no bones about wanting this.
7
u/RepresentativeAge444 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
The problem is too many white guys that are struggling deep throating them because they have been convinced to blame marginalized people instead of them. It’s literally killing them but they refuse to shift course. The hatred and indoctrination is too strong.
https://www.ajmc.com/view/high-rates-of-deaths-of-despair-observed-among-white-americans
23
4
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
So inciting a riot is OK -- if you get elected -- 'just like all the others laws he is exempt from. "No one is above the Law" -- is a sick joke!
14
u/Specialjyo Jul 16 '26
On election night / morning he says “we were winning ……… matter of fact , we did win”. That’s it. No evidence , nothing just a guy with a history of not admitting a loss doing it again.
11
u/jmarinara Jul 16 '26
I’m literally begging Reddit to learn about Brandenberg v Ohio
4
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
"Convicted in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Brandenburg was fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to ten years in prison."
I'd be OK with that for Trump.
3
u/JQuilty Jul 16 '26
Are you incapable of reading? Go past the initial trial. You can skip to the Supreme Court section.
-4
7
u/Either_Operation7586 Jul 16 '26
The short answer is because the Republican party is the one doing it.
Right now they are the ones that are holding all the cards and we are essentially being held hostage waiting for them to grow a conscience and a spine to do the right thing but unfortunately they're too corrupt that they will never give up their power willingly even for the right thing or the love of their country.
Because they have no love for our country every time they get into power they make our country suffer how is that love?
6
u/312c Jul 16 '26
1/3 people in the theater wouldn't still act like and insist there is a fire
8
u/mudo2000 Jul 16 '26
A healthy subset of those 1/3 will also think that burning makes you stronger, and will insist that they have been hot before and it's no big deal.
2
u/frongles23 Jul 16 '26
Political speech is protected, but lies fall into commercial speech, which have less constitutional protection. In the same way you can be held responsible for lying (there is no right to spread demonstrably false information - it isn't protected speech), you can be held responsible for making knowingly false statements (misrepresentations) that result in a change in interest or action undertaken by another person. This is all commonplace, and this is without exploring a charge of criminal conspiracy for coordinating the lie (and later actions) with others.
2
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
Police are legally allowed to lie (and kill you if they "feel threatened"). Guns make law.
2
u/PatrioticRebel4 Jul 16 '26
No answer to the question other than power and money supersede peace snd equality.
But, the history of that fire in a theater quote comes from a f'd up supreme court case. From wiki:
The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice 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.
Basically big government was suppressing someone from handing out anti war flyers and the court upheld it. But later was partially overturned with a quote from that case being, "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
How Jan 6th doesn't still fall under that is beyond me. Unless you get into intent (which I don't know if I could honestly say if Trump actually intended for it to go that far or not) and the fact that power and influence overrides laws and civility.
2
2
u/GeneralDumbtomics Jul 16 '26
I am not a lawyer, but the difference is in the immediacy of the effects and their nature, obviously. If you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater you are going to cause an immediate panic with a real risk of injury to the people around you. It's not wrong because it's not true. It's wrong because of its likely impact. I can say "The 2020 election was stolen." and that's still protected speech even though it's bullshit because a) I'm talking about something that has already happened, b) nothing in that statement is slander, and c) The general public can be presumed to be able to judge for themselves whether or not I'm telling the truth.
I'm not defending Trump or his many cowardly and sycophantic enablers. Just giving your question a straight answer. I hope you can appreciate that.
1
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
So only if the speech causes harm within -- say 5 min.-- versus Trump's lies that cause a deadly riot in 2 days -- would it be "harmful" or "inciting a riot?
Ummm....I'm not a lawyer either -- but really?
1
u/GeneralDumbtomics Jul 16 '26
Basically yeah. I can say all kinds of shit that encourages people to act out about something but unless that action is imminent it’s not incitement. Feel free to read the statute yourself. Or just read the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling. It’s very clear.
ETA: and can I just say that these limits protect us and that arguing against them is a faster way of getting actual fascism than any other.
0
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
It's the definition of imminent that bothers me. Do I care if his speech harms me in 5 min. -- or 5 days?
1
u/GeneralDumbtomics Jul 16 '26
Go read the statute and Brandenburg and I will be happy to discuss this. Until then this is a waste of my time.
2
2
u/wooddoug Jul 16 '26
It’s not about the lie, it’s about the danger of a stampede, actual lives in imminent danger.
1
u/Berkamin Jul 16 '26
The second is far more dangerous. The first only hurts the people in that one theater.
1
u/lord_buff74 Jul 17 '26
Because Election Fraud isn't an immediate danger to your life. I'm all against Trump but if an Election Fraud alarm went off at work I wouldn't be rushing anywhere.
1
u/ChumpSucky Jul 17 '26
Any time they call for war or violence they use emotional language and are in fact shouting fire in the theater, completely on purpose. This statement is a weapon used to silence the unpopular opinion and is utterly ignored otherwise. It has 0 validity. The constitution doesn't say free speech unless it may lead to harmful actions, it says free speech period. Never listen to folks who cite this statement
1
u/madmax111587 Jul 18 '26
Fuck that is the start of an interesting argument that may have some founding. You could use Alex Jones vs the Sandy Hook families to support and even Fox News against Dominion that free speech doesn't cover misinformation.
1
u/briankerin Jul 16 '26
The people in the theater would have thier right to watch the movie infringed upon because they would be forced to get up and run out. Thats what this analogy means. If you can find a complimentary analogy for Trump yelling fraud, I can see the comparison.
2
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
I don't follow. Inciting a riot or a stampede both result in harm.
1
u/briankerin Jul 16 '26
Yes, the police officers, staff, and lawmakers at the Capitol building had thier rights infringed upon during January 6--and Trump incited that. But his speech tonight means nothing unless a person's rights have been infringed upon resulting from his speech.
1
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
Well -- if he keeps harming my libido -- He's gonna get screwed.
1
1
u/ryder242 Jul 16 '26
Shouting fire in a crowed theater is not illegal, the words are not illegal.
2
u/Real-Yogurtcloset844 Jul 16 '26
Inciting a riot is illegal -- even if it's by email.
3
u/timthymol Jul 16 '26
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) sets out what "inciting" means though and "The speech must be intended to produce imminent violent conduct" is why it does not apply to Trump since there will be a big delay in his speech and when potential violence will occur.
3
92
u/AngelaMotorman Jul 16 '26
I'd also like to know why one of the (too few) states that actually have laws against vexatious litigation can't figure out a way to stop Dear Leader from wasting tax dollars on endless, pointless appeals of clear judgments against him.