Hacker News Reader

Comment by koshergweilo | Hacker News Reader

First amendment has limitations. Saying fire in a movie theater, for example. Multiple courts in a number of separate jurisdictions have ruled that the first amendment does not protect Jones in these cases

View on HN

Just so we’re on the same page, “fire in a crowded theater” was coined as part of the Supreme Court’s upholding of a conviction for protesting the draft during WW1. The decision is no longer really relevant, having been replaced in a later case with a revised test that requires that the speech in question is intended to, and likely to cause, imminent lawless action. Which is for the best, because the Schenck decision hails from an era of the Supreme Court that was decidedly less tolerant of individual speech.

None of that is relevant here, because defamation is an established exception to the 1st amendment, totally separate from incitement of lawless action.

Oh I agree, it doesn't apply to this particular case but it is the textbook definition of a reasonable limit on free speech. The poster I was replying to seemed to be under the impression that the first amendment protected all forms of speech. As you said, the courts have carved out many exceptions to the first amendment.

Except it’s not the textbook definition. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected by the 1st amendment, and the case where the phrase was coined has been replaced by better 1st amendment tests for whether speech can be punished by the government.

That's actually a kind of poor example. The tort of defamation is much more clearly outside of constitutional protection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com