National Gun Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/at-least-14-people-have-been-arrested-this-month-for-threatening-mass-shootings/ar-AAGeNh5?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout

By ABC news count 14 people been arrested by claiming they wanted to do mass shooting. Will let the article speak for itself.
Quote:"In the 20 days since the back-to-back mass shootings, 14 people, by ABC News' count, have said they were plotting or expressed interest in carrying out mass attacks, according to local police and federal law enforcement."

To me this is just the start. What happens when they extend it to: Those of us who said we were willing to defend ourselves by using a fire arm.
Thier way of thinking is that if anyone suggests they are willing to take a life by firearm (since many don't see self defense as anything but murder)
Many of us could find ourselves in hot water because we have now officially moved in to thought police enforcement state. Damn free speech.
 

·
AZHerper
Joined
·
3,527 Posts
Free speech has always been reasonably limited. A great example harks back to a 1919 SCOTUS decision where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said free speech and the First Amendment doesn't extend to "shouting fire in a crowded theater".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
which is one of the reason I stopped being member of forums such as daily kos. WOW if they had said that kind of thing in person they would most likely be arrested for making threats.

I am pro firearm and had been defending the NRA there, my mistake. Their method of threatening someone is to wish something horrible happens to you, or claim someone else would do something bad to you etc. Without ever claiming they would prefer to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,842 Posts
Were any of the the Clintons for their murders?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,356 Posts
Free speech has always been reasonably limited. A great example harks back to a 1919 SCOTUS decision where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said free speech and the First Amendment doesn't extend to "shouting fire in a crowded theater".

What if the theater is on fire?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The fire quote was shortened for simplicity.



It said more like "you can not shout fire in a crouded movie theater if there is no real fire. " shortened to " You can't shout fire in crouded theater"
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
21,085 Posts
Fortunately or unfortunately, those arrested will be released with the option to file a civil suit against the police for false arrest and imprisonment. Saying you're plotting or expressing interest in mass attacks against others is not in itself a crime.

Heck, I'm interested in buying a Ferrari and taking Elizabeth Hurley out on a hot date with her staying until morning, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen ...... ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of 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.
The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre. The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top