Casual reminder that "fire in a crowded theater" is a statement that marks you as an uneducated, blithering idiot.

It blows my mind that these people keep using a defunct argument that originally existed to try and put an opponent of the U.S. military draft in prison!

In fact, if anything, this situation is comparable to Schenck vs. United States (the case where Oliver Wendel Holmes coined "fire in a crowded theater") because both involved vocal opposition to enforced government policy.

"Don't shout fire in a crowded theater" is a good argument for why people SHOULDN'T say certain things that are irresponsible or untrue or potentially harmful. it is not a good argument for why people SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO say certain things.

By the way, Brandenburg vs. Ohio (the case that overturned Schenck) sets the standard such that calls for such protests during coronavirus are not protected by free speech. Not agreeing or disagreeing. Just saying based on my reading of "imminent lawless action."

The way I read it, saying to people "you should do something that is illegal and do it right now" with the expectation that people will act on it does not fall under free speech. So calls to violate stay-at-home orders and organize protests seem to be illegal, which is worrisome.

This is just me musing as a lay person, but I wonder if a court could exclude these because the so-called "lawless action" here violates a temporary order and not a law that was put on the books using normal legislative processes. Also freedom of movement issues involved.

Like, a governor can't just say "I'm declaring a state of emergency and instating a curfew" and then you're not allowed to protest it at night because the governor suddenly made that illegal. I'm sure there are technical terms for all this that I just don't know.