"So when you smugly drop 'You can’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater' in a First Amendment debate, you’re misquoting an empty rhetorical device uttered by a career totalitarian in a long-overturned case about jailing draft protesters." --
The Atlantic asked me to update and revise my old "false First Amendment tropes" piece, which I think meant "make it more coherent, better spelled, and less sweary." I did, and they ran it. The bullet: there are a lot of flat-wrong arguments out there.
"Most speech, hateful or not, is protected by the Constitution. To pretend otherwise is foolhardy." Bravo
“So when you smugly drop “You can’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater”...you’re misquoting an empty rhetorical device uttered by a career totalitarian in a long-overturned case about jailing draft protesters. This is not persuasive or helpful.”
"Those tired tropes are barriers to serious discussions about free speech. Any useful discussion of what the law should be must be informed by an accurate view of what the law is.”
I read about halfway through this and thought two things: A) this is a damn good article and B) who the fuck wrote this, they sure have been reading a lot of...oh, of course it’s .
"If you’ve read op-eds about free speech in America, you’ve almost certainly encountered empty, misleading, or simply false tropes about the First Amendment," argues . "Those tired tropes are barriers to serious discussions about free speech."
"If you’ve read op-eds about free speech in America, you’ve almost certainly encountered empty, misleading, or simply false tropes about the First Amendment," argues . "Those tired tropes are barriers to serious discussions about free speech."
"If you’ve read op-eds about free speech in America, you’ve almost certainly encountered empty, misleading, or simply false tropes about the First Amendment," argues . "Those tired tropes are barriers to serious discussions about free speech."
"When you smugly drop 'You can’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater' in a First Amendment debate, you’re misquoting an empty rhetorical device uttered by a career totalitarian in a long-overturned case about jailing draft protesters."
Here commits an egregious Third Amendment violation. I fully expect the Marshal of the Supreme Court to speak to him about it.
"If you’ve read op-eds about free speech in America, you’ve almost certainly encountered empty, misleading, or simply false tropes about the First Amendment," argues . "Those tired tropes are barriers to serious discussions about free speech."
"The First Amendment is broad, robust, aggressively and consistently protected by the Supreme Court, and not subject to the many exceptions and qualifications that commentators seek to graft upon it" I get so excited when actual lawyers write about the law
Don’t Use These Free Speech Arguments Ever Again
Tropes and bad arguments about the First Amendment that should go the way of theater fires.
But.... "you can't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater." Wrong!
But... "Fighting words are not free speech. Hate speech is not free speech.”  Wrong, & wrong!
"But while we’re all entitled to our own opinions, we’re not entitled to our own facts, even in 2019."
But ... “Incitement and threats are not free speech.” Wrong!
Please Don’t Use These #FreeSpeech Arguments Ever Again (And NO I'm Not Censoring You by Saying that, for Godsakes) by Ken
"Here are some misstatements, misconceptions, and bad arguments about the First Amendment you will encounter regularly in American media. Watch for them, and recognize how they distort the debate over speech." [email protected]