Remember how ages ago, I mentioned that whenever a discussion about free speech gets going, “some idiot” sooner or later misquotes O.W. Holmes and says that free speech doesn’t mean you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater? When the fact is that you CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theater…provided there’s a fire. What Holmes said you cannot do is falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater and cause a panic. And furthermore, Holmes’ comment was attached to a decision that had nothing to do with theaters, crowds, fires or panic. It instead supported a horrific lower court abuse of free speech rights, when a socialist named Schenck was jailed for years and heavily fined simply for advocating the notion that the draft was wrong. You remember the draft: It’s that thing they eventually abolished and now when politicians try to make each other look bad, they claim the other guys are talking about bringing it back.
The Holmes-quoted decision not only jailed Schenck, but dozens of other Americans over the following years because it advocated a fundamental concept: Disagreeing with the US government in times of war was a jailable offense.
You’d think people would learn. And yet there, on the “Daily Show” last night, was Zell Miller, discussing freedom of speech and misquoting Holmes, as if misquoting was a good thing. As if a court decision suppressing disagreement with the government was a good thing.
Thank heavens I was not in the audience of the “Daily Show” last night. Because I just KNOW I would have shouted out, “Holmes didn’t say that, you nitwit!” Which probably would have gotten me thrown out of the theater, but hey, it’s better than falsely shouting “fire.”
PAD
• 
“You remember the draft: It’s that thing they eventually abolished and now when politicians try to make each other look bad, they claim the other guys are talking about bringing it back.”
Would this be like Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-New York) proposing the reinstatment of the draft and then voting against his own bill?
We’re all missing the most important point of the discussion:
Is it all right to yell “Oh no, we’ve got movie sign!” in a crowded lobby of a theater. Or a Satellite?
I, for one, am in favor of retiring the “shouting ‘fire’ in a theater” thing from the collective vocabulary altogether. It’s dated and overused. I propose that the new, often used example of non-protected speech be “Shouting ‘turd’ in a crowded swimming pool.”
-Rex Hondo-
Regardless of whether it’s used correctly or not, I think it’s a stupid quote. The way people use it, you’d think shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is the worst thing you can possibly say, which is just silly. In this day and age, someone who shouted it would most likely be ignored anyway.
And also because people who use that quote show a lack of imagination.
If a man needs to smoke really urgently but is caught without a lighter, and yells “Fire!”, is that a false yelling?
OK, I think we’ve made a good start, but we have quite a way to go if we’re going to come anywhere near the retcon, stetcon, etc… thread.
-Rex Hondo-
“The English language is becoming the oral equivalent of jazz or horseshoes, where close enough is okay.”
I sympathize with your sentiments. And feel your jazz analogy is not far off the mark. Ladyfriend is a semi-pro jazz singer (albeit in Osaka) and has explained to me that the ‘jazz’ genre seems fluid because much of it relies on improvisation or ‘winging’ it. Having heard so many variations on the genre, I believe her. Unfortunately, the English language is fast becoming like that, with people trumpeting their quasi-illiteracy by ‘improvising’ as they go. Turning nouns into verbs by adding “ing” for example. Or coming up with deliberately vague descriptors such as “significant other” (“other” what?).
>”He advocated that people not submit to perceived tyranny…just like that bášŧárd, Thomas Jefferson.”
Uh, yes. And remember that the only reason he didn’t wind up in jail or hanged was that the rebels won. Otherwise, he’d have shared Schenck’s fate – or worse.
Two thoughts that popped into this melon on top of my neck:
1.PAD, I don’t think they would’ve thrown you out of the theater. You’d probably end up sitting across from Louis Black every so often.
2. All this talk about right-minded people makes me think, as I often do, where are all the left-minded people? Just because they agree with, oh, say, YOU, doesn’t exclude the possibility that you’re ALL nuts. But, then, sitting here in my padded cell with a computer that I made from half a Twinkie, a bed spring, and some thread from my I’m with stupid t-shirt, I’m a nut, too.
Ok, I’m a nit-picker…
It’s not illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. What IS illegal is to create a panic situation where no cause for panic exists. And even then, in today’s “it wasn’t my fault” mentality, if you do alert people to an emergency situation, and in the ensuing panic, some are injured, you can almost bet that some of that injured crowd are going to try and sue you for not alerting the crowd in a manner that would not cause a panic.
Let me chime in as one of those lawyers that does find the Schenk decision incorrect. To a degree, the “debate” ocurring between PAD and Mr. Bjorlin can’t really get anywhere, because PAD reads the Schenk pamphlet and sees no solicitation, while Bjorlin reads it, and states that no reasonable person or jury could come to any conclusion other than that it is intended to solicit desertion. Thus, in Bjorlin’s opinion, PAD is not a reasonable person , and you can’t really debate with someone you consider unreasonable.
There’s a current applicatin similar to this. Forgive me for not posting a cite, but there was a cleric or priest of some sort recently convicted of advocating people of muslim influence travelling overseas to oppose the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t know the particular details of that case, but let’s use it to consider some varying fact patterns:
If his words were to the effect “head overseas to kill US troops wherever you find them,” that’s a pretty clear statement of incitment to commit the crime of murder, and possibly treason. However, if he used the non-specific “oppose the US,” that leaves things less clear. Does he have to make it clear that his view of “opposition” is non-violent in order to his words to be non-solicilatory? (hmmm, is that even a word? I’m on sudafed, kinda loopy). Can you encourage someone to oppose the government and mean something other than illegal acts? I’d say that a reasonable person would assume that, unless you state otherwise, your words against the government are intended to be within the borders of the law, and any acts you encourage are likewise intended to encourage law-abiding acts. The Schenk memo speaks of supporting, and opposing. It call for no specific actions. It’s intended to inspire action, and that action is left up to the inspired. How else could one have opposed the draft, other than failing to report? By writing letters of opposition to your elected officials. By converting to the religious groups exempted from the draft. By seeking other ways to avoid the draft. All legal avenues of opposition. Interpreting Schenk’s pamphlet as solicitation seems to me to be the act of a paranoid tyrant seeking to crush any opinion in opposition to its own. And it’s quite possible that mindset is currently in power again today. Truly, what else can one mean by the statement “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
Well, Bush’s actual use of that quote was “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” but it amounts to the same thing.
Maybe this is only funny to me because of the sudafed…
On a board my wife frequents (inhabited by pregnant women), one poster was speaking about an issue with keeping a pet that had attacked her child, and arguing with her husband about keeping it.
She mentioned she was “keeping it on the down-low for now.”
Now, I know I’m getting to that age where I’m not keeping up with current slang terms. But I’m pretty sure keeping something on the down-low means keep it secret. So, how, exactly, can she keep something secret from her husband when he already knows it? You know things are getting bad when even slang terms are getting misappropriated.
“seperation of church and state”. That is my favorite misquote.
I think my favorite is the one from that supposedly dámņáblë liberal media misquoting Gore on his supposedly creating the internet.
David Bjorlin posted:
“Miller carried Georgia almost every time he ran statewide, whereas the national Democratic party hasn’t carried Georgia in a Presidential campaign since I was 3, it’s been that long here in North Carolina as well, Florida only went Democratic once in that period, and Virginia hasn’t gone Democratic since LBJ.”
I didn’t realize you were a teenager, David. Georgia went to the Democrats in 1992 (Clinton had 1,008,966 votes to GHWBush’s 995,252 with Perot earning 309,657 votes; the state’s electoral votes went to Clinton).
“You’d think people would learn. And yet there, on the “Daily Show” last night, was Zell Miller, discussing freedom of speech and misquoting Holmes, as if misquoting was a good thing. As if a court decision suppressing disagreement with the government was a good thing.”
Ironically, Zell, in his charming dementia, is demonstrating the beauty of free speech. When morons and thugs are allowed to share their ideas, you get to see just how really stupid they are.
Our party actually has a chance in hëll of nominating a moderate (Giuliani, McCain), and there will be a line out the door of conservative Democrats ready to back us.
They would never get in the door because all of the extreme right wingnuts that currently control your party would be burning down the convention hall.
There is no way in hëll that the current GOP leadership will ever stand for McCain or Giuliani getting the presidential nomination. I’ve seen how moderate Republicans (or “RINOs” as your leadership lovingly calls them) like Arlen Specter have been actively targeted for defeat in the primary election by their own party (Fortunately for Specter, Bush realized that having him in the Senate was better for the GOP than watching a nutjob like Pat Toomey hand the seat over to the Democrats). I suggest you read “It’s My Party Too” by Christie Whitman to see how happy moderates are with the current GOP party leadership.
David Bjorlin posted:
“I shouldn’t complain. It makes life very easy for us RINOs. Our party actually has a chance in hëll of nominating a moderate (Giuliani, McCain), and there will be a line out the door of conservative Democrats ready to back us.”
Oh, really? So why then did the Republican Party back Dubya in 2000 over McCain, and why did no MODERATE Republican challenge Dubya in 2004? Why has the GOP Platform been consistently controlled by its far-right constituents since Reagan’s nomination in 1980, even to the point of completely ignoring a plea from the Log Cabin Republicans to include a plank acknowledging diversity in thought among Republicans?
While the GOP did its best to put on a “moderate” face during the Prime-Time coverage of the Convention last year, its platform was anything but moderate. There was a fair number of the GOP’s far-right membership that was quite unhappy that their side was relegated to the sidelines with most of their speakers having daytime slots which kept the more hardline members from being seen by potential swing voters (I think the GOP learned their lesson after Pat Buchanan’s rather incendiary 1992 convention speech).
I don’t see the GOP nominating ANY self-described moderate as long as the party continues catering to the far-right Christian community (by that, I specifically mean the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and Gary Bauer, among others). The GOP learned how indebted it was to that group in 1988, and had that group not been actively courted by the GOP in 1992, Clinton’s margin could have been even larger.
Even Bob Dole, who by any current standards would be counted as “moderate”, had to turn on his moderate history to keep the Religious Right vote in 1996 (such as when he returned the Log Cabin Republican donation when the Religious Right vocally objected).
“keeping it on the down-low for now.”
Actually, the real meaning of that slang phrase makes it even funnier. Ice-T talked about it on SVU some time back:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767913981/104-2755765-5007960?v=glance
I’ve heard that quote so many times without anyone ever mentioning the context, from history and government teachers no less. Kind of sad. However, uncontextualized and under-researched references are pervasive in many forms of media (so long as people can continue to get away with it), so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Everyone’s posts on the subject have been enlightening. Thanks!
I didn’t realize you were a teenager, David. Georgia went to the Democrats in 1992
I stand corrected. I misread my source.
Ironically, Zell, in his charming dementia, is demonstrating the beauty of free speech. When morons and thugs are allowed to share their ideas, you get to see just how really stupid they are.
I quite agree. And thanks for illustrating your own point.
PAD’s main problem with the use of “fire in a theater” seems to be that people are too stupid to know that it applies only the theaters that are not actually on fire, while at the same time are learned enough to understand the (possible) miscarriage of justice that the nearly-90-year old case from which the quote originates represents.
I understand taking a stand against the decision, and believing that it lead to a slippery slope of law in this country. I can understand, knowing what you do, and feeling how you feel about the origins of the quote, cringing whenever you see it.
The fact remains, however, that inciting a panic under false pretenses (i.e. shouting “fire” in a theater that is not, at the moment, actually on fire) is an example of speech that is not protected, whether you like the example or not. If a person uses it, you getting all pissy doesn’t dismiss the point that some speech is not protected, nor does it make that person an idiot. It just makes them a person that is capable of pushing your buttons.
I could, for example, make the statement that “it is illegal to kill another human being.” I think most people are intelligent enough to know that, for example, killing an enemy combatant during a time of war isn’t illegal. Or that killing someone in self defense isn’t illegal. Or that, currently at least, state-sponsored execution of criminals convicted of capital offenses is not illegal. I shouldn’t have to write 17 paragraphs of legalese to qualify a simple, clear, and concise statement.
Sure, we could load everything that we write with an exacting level of detail, leaving nothing to be questioned and assuming that our readers are complete imbeciles who would think that the “fire” analogy applies to all theaters whether they are burning or not. Sure, we could do that.
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of sarcasm. You can’t just assume that people know when one of your characters is joking; you’d be safer to make all of them completely literal. And hey, let’s also get rid of the metaphor and the simile; people could get confused and really think that “It’s hotter than hëll in here” means that it’s 9,000 degrees in the room, and they might wonder why everyone isn’t bursting into flame.
Come on, PAD. You’ve taken an extremely weak argument and stretched it into the ludicrous. I don’t disagree with your opinions on the Holmes decision, but your feelings about the “fire” example are irrational.
Phinn
Phinn, I think PAD’s point is that people do think it’s illegal to shout fire in a theater. I can almost guarantee you, were I to pass by the local AMC and see smoke billowing from the roof, flames leaping into the sky, and run into auditorium 3 and shout “the building’s on fire! Everyone get out now!”, and people were injured in the ensuing panicked rush, some “idiot” surely would try to sue me. Or have me arrested, or BOTH. Because I’m sure there’s a whole group of people out there that DO believe that it’s illegal to shout “fire” in a theater, whether there’s a fire there or not. Because repeated quoting of the statement, taken out of context, leaves just the words and their plain meaning.
Also, just because the statement supports the idea that not all expressions are protected free speech, doesn’t mean that using that quote means that the particular form of speech your discussing is likewise not protected. And this, I’d guess, is PAD’s source of finding the idiocy here. Because anyone can say “you can’t say X, just like you can’t shout “fire” in a theater!” And when X = some dirty word/sexual content/violence/bad satire, the fire reasoning just doesn’t help explain why that particular expression isn’t protected. The idiocy comes up because sometimes, the fire statement is the only reason you’ll get from the party trying to limit free speech.
“Well, OK, but you have to accept that you’re advocating a change in centuries’ worth of legal doctrine. In my jurisdiction at least, the law does not distinguish between soliciting someone to commit a violent offense and soliciting someone to commit a victimless offense. PAD’s claim is that Schenck’s conviction was a misapplication– not to say travesty– of free speech law, which it’s not.”
Well, yes, it is a travesty, since nowhere in Schenck’s pamphlet does it explicitly say “Break the law.” Furthermore, there are specific laws that prohibit someone soliciting someone else to commit a violent offense. There is also a specific law–or Constitutional Amendment–that forbid Congress from interfering with someone who is NOT soliciting a violent offense, but merely saying something the government disagrees with. Any prosecution that falls within First Amendment purview must, MUST be held to a higher standard. The Schenck prosecution, as well as the prosecution of others who merely advocated the US staying out of the war, was held to a lower one.
“Schenck’s conviction was “unassailable?” Hmm. Well, I’m no lawyer, but there’s a considerable body of writing from people who *are* lawyers who assail it just fine.
And I can fire back a stream of lawyers who think it’s perfectly valid, starting with me.”
Irrelevant. YOU are the one who said Holmes’ argument was “unassailable.” “Unassailable”: Not liable to attack, doubt or question. I pointed out that others have indeed attacked, doubted or questioned it. So you were wrong. Yet now you turn around and say, “Others think it’s valid,” and you also haul up a Dershowitz opinion that seems off the mark, but it’s also irrelevant because it doesn’t alter the fact that Holmes’ opinion is not unassailable. It’s this sloppy application, illogical thinking that I’m railing about in the first place.
“The fact remains, however, that inciting a panic under false pretenses (i.e. shouting “fire” in a theater that is not, at the moment, actually on fire) is an example of speech that is not protected, whether you like the example or not. If a person uses it, you getting all pissy doesn’t dismiss the point that some speech is not protected, nor does it make that person an idiot. It just makes them a person that is capable of pushing your buttons.”
No, it does make them an idiot, because more often than not, they haul out this misquoted cliche as some sort of intended argument stopper, the ultimate trump card. “Aha! Well, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, protected speech doesn’t mean you can shout fire in a crowded theater!” My response is, (1) No, he didn’t say that, (2) the context in which he did say it was irrelevant to the sentiment expressed, and (3) the case in which it was said was a miscarriage of justice involving a government practice that has since been abolished and (4) if the standard applied by the high court in 1919 was applied now, half the bloggers on the internet would be liable for prosecution. Which is why I think it’s time to retire this overtired, inaccurately quoted and contextually suspect “truism” and show the wit to come up with something else, such as…oh, I don’t know…Free speech doesn’t include falsely shouting WMDs in a foreign country.
PAD
Two other inaccurately quoted truisms to retire (while we’re at it, though this is entirely unrelated to the thread):
“The exception proves the rule” (from the Latin, Exceptio probat regulam, or something similar, which really means ‘the exception tests the rule.’ The definition of the word ‘prove’ has evolved over time.)
“Good fences make good neighbors”. An accurate quote from Robert Frost’s poem, but Robert Frost was not advocating this. This is the argument given by the narrator’s neighbor. The narrator (and by extension, Frost) takes the opposite view.
“It is just an excuse to call a conservative an idiot.”
Do we really need an excuse? hahaha Oh…don’t cry, just kidding.
Or a State of the Union address?
Unfortunately, PAD, I don’t see the cliche being retired anytime soon for two reasons:
1) Regardless of its origins, the phrase has taken on a life of it’s own. I think precisely because most people don’t know about its original context, they feel very comfortable using it.
2) Twisted and abused though it may be, it is still a convenient short hand for most people to use to define a limit on free speech most people can agree on: Not causing an unnecessary panic in a theater. That some people try to use it to justify further limitations on free speech (extending the FCC’s unconstitutional censorship powers to cable) will only increase its usage.
Loved your analogy about the bloggers, though. I personally can’t wait for the next democratic president, when all of the bloggers who right now are saying that any questioning of the president is treason will transform overnight into stallwart defenders of the right to dissent.
“I can almost guarantee you, were I to pass by the local AMC and see smoke billowing from the roof, flames leaping into the sky, and run into auditorium 3 and shout “the building’s on fire! Everyone get out now!”, and people were injured in the ensuing panicked rush, some “idiot” surely would try to sue me. Or have me arrested, or BOTH. Because I’m sure there’s a whole group of people out there that DO believe that it’s illegal to shout “fire” in a theater, whether there’s a fire there or not. Because repeated quoting of the statement, taken out of context, leaves just the words and their plain meaning.”
You really think you live in a world where getting people out of a burning building will get you sued and arrested? You must REALLY be for tort reform.
I think that the number of people who actually believe that it is illegal to shout “Fire” in a burning theatre is very very very small. I know it’s comforting, in some odd way, to believe that one is surrounded by idiots but it’s probably less true than many would like to think.
” I personally can’t wait for the next democratic president, when all of the bloggers who right now are saying that any questioning of the president is treason will transform overnight into stallwart defenders of the right to dissent.”
And the Democratic bloggers will trot out the many defenses they gave Clinton. Yawn. Live long enough and this stuff becomes as surprising as the order of the seasons.
I’m surprised that nobody has tried to claim that all of our uses of the word “idiot” are, um, idiotic since, by the old use of the word, it refered to someone having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech. Whereas an imbecile was a person with a mental age of from 3 to 7 years. If an idiot studied really hard they might hope to become a imbecile. They might even make it all the way to moron, though this usually required some graduate work.
Always interesting to hear the original intent of a statement that has become widely, yet erroneously used.
My favorite is “I think, therefore I am.” Used by many with the intent of stating that inidividuals know that they exist, but the original point was actually to point out that we can’t be sure of any of our perceptions or even the existance of others. We can only be sure of our own consciousness. Heady stuff indeed.
On a less brain hemorrhaging level, I find a pet peeve of mine to be when words like “retard” or “gay” are used to disrespect someone else when the issue has nothing to do with sexual identity or biology.
And the Democratic bloggers will trot out the many defenses they gave Clinton. Yawn. Live long enough and this stuff becomes as surprising as the order of the seasons.
I believe that was my point.
If an idiot studied really hard they might hope to become a imbecile. They might even make it all the way to moron, though this usually required some graduate work.
So there’s hope for Bush after all.
Ding ding ding! And the person who had 10-12 minutes in the Office Pool for “How long would it take for someone to make a Bush joke when the words “imbecile” or “moron” are used” wins!
Pavlov’s dogs were less dependable…
Hey, when even his wife makes jokes about his stupidity (milking a male horse), what do you expect?
Thanks. I’m glad somebody besides me knows the actual history behind that (mis)quote.
You can, however, shout “Fire!” outside an old folks home; it’s more fun if you wax the steps first.
(Kidding! KIDDING!)
“You really think you live in a world where getting people out of a burning building will get you sued and arrested? You must REALLY be for tort reform”
We live in world where if you save someone from chokeing, but injure thier back they can and have sued.
“I know it’s comforting, in some odd way, to believe that one is surrounded by idiots but it’s probably less true than many would like to think.”
I don’t think I’m surrounded by idiots. There are a multitde of them to be sure. I do believe that I’m surrounded by áššhølëš. They are everywhere!
JAC
>>You really think you live in a world where getting people out of a burning building will get you sued and arrested? You must REALLY be for tort reform”
JAC:
>We live in world where if you save someone from chokeing, but injure thier back they can and have sued.
They can certainly attempt it, but Good Samaritan Laws, which I think have taken hold in most if not all states in the nation, have allowed those looking enact a good deed (saving someone from a fire, CPR, etc) without expecting compensation to do so without fear of being sued.
Fred
I think my favorite is the one from that supposedly dámņáblë liberal media misquoting Gore on his supposedly creating the internet.
For God’s sake, do you want the wav file of him saying, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet”? It was poor word choice aggrandizing
his genuine commitment to funding the internet’s development into what we have today. What’s the big deal?
http://bessiebee.com/Trivia/wavarchives01.html
PAD wrote Schenck’s conviction was “unassailable?” Hmm. Well, I’m no lawyer, but there’s a considerable body of writing from people who *are* lawyers who assail it just fine.
I responded And I can fire back a stream of lawyers who think it’s perfectly valid, starting with me.”
PAD wrote back Irrelevant. YOU are the one who said Holmes’ argument was “unassailable.” “Unassailable”: Not liable to
attack, doubt or question. I pointed out that others have indeed attacked, doubted or questioned it. So you were wrong. Yet now
you turn around and say, “Others think it’s valid,” and you also haul up a Dershowitz opinion that seems off the mark, but it’s also irrelevant because it doesn’t alter the fact that Holmes’
opinion is not unassailable. It’s this sloppy application, illogical thinking that I’m railing about in the first place.
And it’s this willful blindness to ordinary English usage that people have been critiquing you about throughout this entire discussion. To say a rhetorical position is “unassailable”
doesn’t mean that no idiot could possibly dispute it; it means that the position is demonstrably right. In all honesty, there is enough evidence of evolution that the truth of complex life
forms developing from lesser life forms should be unassailable. That doesn’t preclude zealots (many of whom do in fact vote for a lot of the same people I vote for) from disputing the point.
The word “unassailable,” when used to refer to a philosophical or rhetorical position, is a military metaphor. The fact that people have died assaulting an “unassailable” fortress doesn’t
precisely undermine the description; a failed attack is simply irrelevant. My reason for bringing up Dershowitz’s other claims is merely to help illustrate that the simple fact that someone, whom I consider to be a fool, made some specious criticism of this position does not suggest to me that the position is really
vulnerable. For that, you’d have to convince me that someone made a VALID criticism of the opinion, specifically in this case that Dershowitz was right, and I don’t think Dershowitz has been right about much of anything in a very long time. William Kunstler was a brilliant radical First Amendment scholar whose
criticism I would take seriously. In contrast, Dershowitz is a loon.
This thread is rehashing a lot of the same issues we went through last summer when we had the same argument. (Go look.
http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1784 ) I said twice last time and once already this time that it was a crappy case that shouldn’t have been prosecuted. The jury
evidently was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Schenck violated the Espionage Act by publishing these pamphlets; I’ve been using the term “solicitation,” because that’s essentially
the nature of his violation, but there’s a good argument to be made that the Espionage Act really did proscribe a broad enough category of conduct to cover what Schenck did. There’s also a
really good argument to be made that the Espionage Act was a lousy law. But that doesn’t change the fact that the law was correctly applied then, and that, but for the substitution of “imminent” (for “present,” the law of free speech under Brandenburg is very close to the law in Schenck. You may think it’s
wrong MORALLY, and I’d frankly be inclined to agree with you, but LEGALLY Holmes was right.
Well, yes, it is a travesty, since nowhere in Schenck’s pamphlet does it explicitly say “Break the law.” Furthermore, there are specific laws that prohibit someone soliciting someone else to commit a violent offense.
Maybe in your jurisdiction. In my state, and under common law, there is one law, and it isn’t even a statute. It is a felony to entice, advise, counsel, incite, induce, order, or command
another person to commit a felony with the intent that the other person commit that crime. There is no distinciton between violent and nonviolent felonies. Nor is there any requirement that the incitement be “explicit,” only that the jury be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the solicitor intended to persuade someone to break the law. You can rail all you want against the morality of the prosecution, but its legality was
sound.
In any event, I am baffled by your tenacious attacks on the Schenck case, when the Debs case is the one thats indefensible. Debs was in fact prosecuted for the sedition you
claim Schenck was prosecuted for. That was in fact the horrible abuse of the First Amendment that you allege in Schenck. Your comment, “(4) if the standard applied by the high court in 1919 was applied now, half the bloggers on the internet would be liable for prosecution,” is utterly wrong when applied to Schenck but completely accurate when applied to Debs. Why do you persist in jumping all over the wrong case?
What’s the big deal?
The fact that people who like to rip into Gore boil it down to the misquote of Gore saying “I created the internet”.
But then, as your comment indicates, who gives a dámņ if we misquote a Democrat, eh?
This whole bloody thead is about the ability of dûmbáššëš to misquote people, and you sum it up in “What’s the big deal?” Wonderful contribution on your part.
Regarding David’s comments on the definition of unassailable…
I have never heard of anyone using unasailable in the “ordinary English” definition given. I’m a pretty smart person, though by no means extraordinarily so. However, because my intellegence and education are demonstrably true (at least as much so as evolution is), it should be unassailable by this ordinary definition? Of course, someone will probably claim that my intellegence is a much more subjective issue. However, in the post-modern world, most things not of a calculable nature are viewed as subjective.
The problem with this muddled definition of unassailable is that it seems to come in degrees. When a word has an “un” in front of it, it should be used as “not” or “cannot be” rather than “practically not” or “close to not being so.” So, on the English usage issue, I have to agree with Peter that we should use the words which best fit the definition we are looking for. C.S. Lewis had a lot to say about how much confusion can be caused when we muck about with meanings.
If a group of lawyers who have studied the law (no matter how stupid you may think they are), attack a position, then that position is not “unassailable,” because it is in dispute. I will grant you that definitions do change over time, but some words (especially those with prefixes) have pretty consistant meanings. The reason we have so many more words that mean almost (e.g. practically, about, nearly, mainly, etc.) than words that mean “definitely” is so we can pinpoint these lesser degrees. We need to have concrete definitions for words if we are to mean anything at all.
I’m not trying to be over-critical. Just expressing my very assailable opinion.
Reason 214 why I love being a Canadian.*
*See above all
But then, as your comment indicates, who gives a dámņ if we misquote a Democrat, eh?
Interesting take on the discussion. I thought your point was “who gives a dámņ if a Democrat misstated a fact, eh?” Gore wasn’t so much “misquoted” as “busted,” particularly when the media “misquotations” of him are usually followed by playing the clip where he said it. You seem determined to imply that he didn’t make that claim… when he did. I don’t care that he did. He only slightly misstated his role. So yes, what’s the big deal? Why are you unwilling to concede that he made the statement, “I took the lead in creating the internet”?
Re: unassailable
I’m standing by my hyperbole. I maintain that the position is empirically, absolutely correct. The fact that other people are wrong about it doesn’t make it ambiguous or subject to reasonable dispute. Unreasonable dispute doesn’t bother me.
I’d like to suggest, in respect to Gore’s “While in Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet”, that we apply the same literalism in attacking the statements “Ronald Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall” (104 Google hits, and I didn’t see him among all those Germans carrying pickaxes in 1989, after all), and “George W. Bush is winning the war on terror” (771 hits, and let me know when Bush starts shooting someone in person. Not that he’s supposed to.) Rhetorically, we routinely allow politicians to personify the results of their policies as if they themselves had committed the specific actions implied by them.
Sorry — the 771 hits if you take out “George W.” from “Bush is….”
Rhetorically, we routinely allow politicians to personify the results of their policies as if they themselves had committed the specific actions implied by them.
I absolutely agree. Which is why I keep saying, “he only slightly misstated his role… what’s the big deal?”
PAD, I think you know what he meant when he misquoted. Like so many other folks out there, you’re more interested in nitpicking on something that is ultimately irrelevent than in the actual issue he was discussing. Not everyone is a cunning linguist like yourself.
So what if Zell Miller and General Ross (from your Hulk What If..? story) have something in common? These kinds of errors just don’t matter anymore like they used to, in case you haven’t noticed.
As to whether ANYONE thinks criticism of the government in time of war warrants prison time, of course; Many (perhaps including a majority of the current Congress) do. They are wrong, but it is dangerous to assume all people think clearly and fairly. Most of those favoring Schenck’s imprisonment work on the assumption that “It’s the law: Who are you to oppose it?” Schenck held the somewhat reasonable, and certainly defensible, position that the law as it existed was wrong and it needed to be changed. If opposition to the way things are at present is illegal, perhaps this country would be better off without Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches: They just waste time creating, executing and interpreting new and existing law, rather than pledging eternal fealty to the status quo. A board of holy men could rule on the orthodoxy of any proposal. Its been tried before – they called it the Taliban.
Criticising one’s own country while it is at war (especially in an effort to protect itself) is fine, as long as it doesn’t lower the morale of the troops and the men who volunteer to fight said war. I don’t think it warrants prison time, but it’s still a šhìŧŧÿ, selfish thing to do… speaking as a former serviceman.
Criticising one’s own country while it is at war (especially in an effort to protect itself) is fine, as long as it doesn’t lower the morale of the troops and the men who volunteer to fight said war. I don’t think it warrants prison time, but it’s still a šhìŧŧÿ, selfish thing to do
Not to disagree, but it seems Schenck was critizing the people running the Government, not the country. Basically he was saying the actions of the politicians (passing the draft) was in contradiction to what this country stands for (freedom). Just my interpertation.
Darin:
>Criticising one’s own country while it is at war (especially in an effort to protect itself) is fine, as long as it doesn’t lower the morale of the troops and the men who volunteer to fight said war. I don’t think it warrants prison time, but it’s still a šhìŧŧÿ, selfish thing to do… speaking as a former serviceman.
I understand what you are saying, Darin. Unfortunately, even if someone who wanted to protest a war and keep the troops’ morale in mind, it is unlikely that any parameters as to what would “lower the morale”. It can easily be argued that protesting against a war is not only not selfish, but also an extremely patriotic thing to do. I recall the dissenters of the Iraq War here in the U.S. were a relatively small number, most of whom were met with eye rolls, sneers, or simply ignored all together. To continue to protest the upcoming and then ongoing war based on lack of evidence at the time, the alienation that it was causing with nearly the entire world at the time, and with potential long-term costs towards one’s country in mind is pretty patriotic in my mind. One shouldn’t ever confuse nationalistic tendencies, which tends to be dangerous, self and unhealthy thinking…. with patriotism.
Fred