I think that’s the large part of the rub in the discussion. With all due respect, I think you make a mistake when you cannot separate defending a civil liberty and defending “fascism.” That’s why I brought up the ACLU, and its history of defending all our civil liberties by defending those most of us would consider odious.
Look at a bunch of the speech cases from the early part of the 20th century and you’ll see that this isn’t really new territory as far as the principles at issue. The state sought to punish advocacy of communism & socialism under the guise of public safety and the notion that we simply couldn’t tolerate these dangerous ideas.
You have a good day as well!
That proposition has come to be wildly misunderstood by the public and actually stands for the opposite proposition in the courts. The exception demonstrates how narrowly those kinds of regulations must be construed. Shouting “fire” in a theater is most definitely legal in any number of circumstances–an empty theater, as part of a play, or if the speaker and audience know that the utterance isn’t likely to actually produce panic.
We’ll have to agree to disagree about whether we think it is wise to expand the “clear and present danger” test to criminalize broad categories of speech based on ideology, as opposed to the current understanding. Thanks for the interesting conversation, in any event.
