From: clarkw@pell2l20.alleg.edu (Walter Clark)
Subject: Re: Yelling "Theater!" in a crowded fire...
Keywords: BUT
Reply-To: nada
Organization: Allegheny College
Distribution: alt.censorship
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:30:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.124424.20653@m.cs.uiuc.edu>  
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
> 
> Some details ...
> 
> ========= ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/law/schenck-v-united-states ========
> Xref: eff alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2666 alt.censorship:3621
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,alt.censorship
> Path: eff!world!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!russotto
> From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
> Subject: Re: Another censorship incident has just occurred
> Message-ID: <1991Dec19.024748.20475@eng.umd.edu>
> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 02:47:48 GMT
> Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College  
Park
> References: <1991Dec18.194423.28973@zip.eecs.umich.edu>  
<1991Dec18.212555.149@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  
<1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu>
> 
> In article <1991Dec18.221806.3518@milton.u.washington.edu>  
taylorsm@milton.u.washington.edu (Allen TaylorSmith) writes:
> >
> >I think it would be germain to this discussion to look at where the  
principle
> >espoused here, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, originated.  It  
was
> >first used in the supporting opinion in a US Supreme Court case, Debs  
vs
> >City of Chicago.  I do not remember which Justice wrote the opinion,  
but it
> >was given as an example of why it was ok for the city of Chicago to  
arrest
> >Eugene V. Debs _before_ he made a speech that the mayor of Chicago felt
> >could lead to civil unrest.  I can't recall off the top of my head if  
this
> >was during the Haymarket Riots or the Pullman Car Strike.
> >
> >My point being that this example was used specifically to allow a  
priori 
> >arrest to prevent a speech from being made.  You judge whether that was
> >censorship or not.
> 
> The first case was Schenck v. United States (249 US 47; 39 S. Ct 247; 63  
L.
> Ed 470 (1919)), decided a week before Debs.  The opinion was written by
> Holmes.
> 
> "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man  
falsely
> shouting fire in a theatre, and causing a panic.  It does not even  
protect a
> man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the  
effect
> of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used  
in
> such circumstances and are of a nature as to create a clear and present
> danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress  
has
> a right to prevent.  It is a question of proximity and degree."
> 
> I find it hard to believe that any article on Usenet (besides, perhaps,  
a
> how-to manual on computer fraud) could satisfy the proximity  
requirement.
> -- 
> Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
> Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons! -- The  
Simpsons
> Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
> (not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
> 
> --
> Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at  
Urbana-Champaign

But I have one question.Who decides what is a "circumstance" that brings a  
"clear and present danger" Tipper Gore would say that Rock Music is a  
circumstance....Are you for Record labeling
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk