General Discussion

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

67. The world's most torturously mis-and over-used anti free speech metaphor.

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:55 PM

Apr 2017

For one, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" wouldn't even necessarily apply to actually yelling fire in a crowded theater.

It sure as shit doesn't apply to the fifty bajillion other examples people invariably try to invoke it around, mostly some variation of "person A says or writes or sings or films or draws something that person B finds offensive"

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-metaphor/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So any speech by anyone must be allowed an audience and center stage at a [View all] Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 OP

If they've been invited by sharp_stick Apr 2017 #1

This. Free speech means sometimes assholes have something to say mythology Apr 2017 #5

What if they invite me and I promote the death of Jews? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #11

Which University group is going to invite sharp_stick Apr 2017 #15

The College Republicans? maxsolomon Apr 2017 #22

Slippery Slope? sharp_stick Apr 2017 #23

I'm saying that The College Republicans maxsolomon Apr 2017 #38

You do realize that you're allowing them to succeed? NunnesBuznat Apr 2017 #45

I am allowing it? Slow your roll, 3 posts. maxsolomon Apr 2017 #49

Would you be likely to promote that? melman Apr 2017 #17

Why would you purposely completely change the point of my message? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #21

Indeed. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #44

That would likely crossover into incitement n/t Azathoth Apr 2017 #79

Anybody? Could I form a group that promotes an agenda that is anti gay and gay marriage Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #13

As I said in the earlier post sharp_stick Apr 2017 #18

What about anti gay groups, disguised as pro traditional marriage who would Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #20

If it doesn't meet the incitement standard (imminent violence) onenote Apr 2017 #58

But the students HAD NOT booked a room. They had made a request and then, pnwmom Apr 2017 #28

My understanding is that Coulter had agreed to an afternoon time slot onenote Apr 2017 #68

The U has already explained. The appropriate venues (based on size and safety) pnwmom Apr 2017 #95

The thing with Berkeley and the Repuke students sharp_stick Apr 2017 #112

You must have missed what happened when Milo Y. arrived -- $100,000 worth of physical damage pnwmom Apr 2017 #115

You're right, I've been trying to discuss this sharp_stick Apr 2017 #116

Yes, the Berkeley administration botched their response, and they're realizing that now. pnwmom Apr 2017 #118

Should they be allowed to book speakers BEFORE getting approval for a venue at the University? pnwmom Apr 2017 #104

Not so simple. What are you saying? n/t phylny Apr 2017 #2

Either anyone and everyone who could be invited must be allowed to speak Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #12

The government is restricted by the first amendment. Voltaire2 Apr 2017 #35

Exactly. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #42

None of your constitutional rights are absolute Thomas Hurt Apr 2017 #3

A similarity to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? kentuck Apr 2017 #37

The world's most torturously mis-and over-used anti free speech metaphor. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #67

I'll listen to anyone. Atman Apr 2017 #4

Likewise Kentonio Apr 2017 #83

I do not listen to anyone. hunter Apr 2017 #93

I really don't care vlyons Apr 2017 #6

a metropolis as large as the east bay will fill a hall to see Coulter every time she wants to speak maxsolomon Apr 2017 #16

Public school, yes maxsolomon Apr 2017 #7

Heckler's Veto onenote Apr 2017 #8

thanks - good info maxsolomon Apr 2017 #14

But the first amendment doesn't require the University to schedule a speaker for April 27 at night pnwmom Apr 2017 #31

The issue is whether there is a reasonable basis for the date choice onenote Apr 2017 #46

And there is. There wasn't an opening in an appropriate venue on May 2. nt pnwmom Apr 2017 #96

the presumption should be that the speech be allowed. nt geek tragedy Apr 2017 #9

the way to win the cultural debate... Softail1 Apr 2017 #10

Private Universities get to take sides. maxsolomon Apr 2017 #19

yes..private ones do...I was refering to Berkley which is public Softail1 Apr 2017 #25

But Berkeley WILL allow her to speak on May 2 in the afternoon, in a venue pnwmom Apr 2017 #33

I may hate the content but I'll defend the right to say it. davsand Apr 2017 #24

Doesnt apply here. AT all. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #30

Nobody disputes the illegality NunnesBuznat Apr 2017 #36

Uh huh, you betcha! Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #39

That's not what the current argument is about re: Coulter... moriah Apr 2017 #43

Well said. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #48

What legal reason? None NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #47

Right, so there is no reason why the university must give her a venue. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #50

Exactly, there is no legal reason NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #51

Actually, there is. The First Amendment. onenote Apr 2017 #107

Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding free speech jurisprudence. SomethingNew Apr 2017 #94

Thanks. Bookmarking. NT mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2017 #114

If they allow anyone, then they have an issue about not allowing some speakers. onenote Apr 2017 #60

If you don't grasp the intellectual argument here there's no reason to continue. davsand Apr 2017 #100

We're not dealing with *any* university, we're dealing with a state university. X_Digger Apr 2017 #102

Trolls are not entitled to rarefied platforms JHan Apr 2017 #26

People confuse the right to stand in the public square and having speech with Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #32

Not sure, if arrangements had already been made then maybe she'd be the wronged party here.. JHan Apr 2017 #56

A University may not be the "public square" but they almost always have areas that are "designated onenote Apr 2017 #61

EXACTLY. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #77

Here's the thing lies Apr 2017 #27

So any speech including an outline of how to exterminate all people with brown hair must Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #29

Stop taking things to the 11th degree; it's childish NunnesBuznat Apr 2017 #41

Exactly Kentonio Apr 2017 #87

LOL Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #91

Yes. The United States Constitution onenote Apr 2017 #62

No lies Apr 2017 #90

Berkeley is not silencing her. They've offered her a venue for May 2nd in the afternoon pnwmom Apr 2017 #34

Ultimately they did but they did not have to legally. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #40

You're almost certainly wrong about that. onenote Apr 2017 #63

In a perfect world, they would be allowed to give a speech anywhere...ever. ileus Apr 2017 #52

People can be hired and speak all they want to Warpy Apr 2017 #53

Government prevented her from speaking before a venue was agreed on? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #54

The university is on the line between private entity and governmental entity Warpy Apr 2017 #55

Your last sentence GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #82

It's the point of the First Amendment Warpy Apr 2017 #84

"After all, the next speaker they decide to silence might be one of ours." beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #85

Yes, public universities are considered "state actors." onenote Apr 2017 #64

She can speak as well on a street corner anywhere. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #75

And eventually, that will be her only venue Warpy Apr 2017 #81

Evelyn Beatrice Hall fantase56 Apr 2017 #57

Has nothing to do with this. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #59

You are under the mistaken impression that only speech in traditional public forums is protected onenote Apr 2017 #65

OH if it were only that simple...it is not. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #71

It is. Designated Public Forum doctrine. onenote Apr 2017 #73

More to it than that, though Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #78

As the article points out, the First Amendment applies to designated public forums onenote Apr 2017 #108

OH if it were only that simple...it is not. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #72

Not necessarily. Still, Free Speech threads on DU are invariably depressing. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #66

Yep. Remember the Charlie Hebdo threads? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #69

Yep. The people who were arguing that blasphemy should be illegal because it might make someone mad. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #76

Always looking for a silver lining. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #80

Oh gawd, I forgot about those. Demented days nt riderinthestorm Apr 2017 #103

Yes they were. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #105

If they are invited. See, the thing is that by being so intolerant of right-wing PatrickforO Apr 2017 #70

No. And it isn't a right to be paid, either. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #74

No, but a legit univ group should be able to invite and listen to any guest speaker they wish aikoaiko Apr 2017 #86

+1000 Kentonio Apr 2017 #88

liberals dont do violence, so I will assume that was done by plants Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #89

There are more groups on the left than liberals; Almost anyone can be violent. aikoaiko Apr 2017 #99

Agreed. n/t tammywammy Apr 2017 #98

As a general rule, yes Azathoth Apr 2017 #92

Point about UC being a public university... VOX Apr 2017 #97

It's simple. A state run university, hence organ of the state, cannot regulate protected speech... X_Digger Apr 2017 #101

I don't understand your point, for one! Nobody has a Constitutional "right" to speak in a college WinkyDink Apr 2017 #111

The state cannot regulate speech based on content, generally. That includes state institutions. X_Digger Apr 2017 #119

I think Coulter and more so Milo are professional shit stirrers and have no favor in my view. PufPuf23 Apr 2017 #106

Universities and such Meowmee Apr 2017 #109

No. I only half kiddingly say I have gone to my local college for 44 years. fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #110

Universities are all about thinking about ideas. MineralMan Apr 2017 #113

So have we past the point... Smickey Apr 2017 #117