FW: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Lou Dobbs is dangerous

[John W.]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>wrote:

Of course you should shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, if there is a fire.
>
> The famous line comes from an utterly reprehensible SC decision in 1919,
> Schenck v. United States. "The most stringent protection of free speech
> would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a
> panic," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. How had Schenck "falsely shouted
> fire"?  He had distributed flyers opposing the draft!  The SC in its majesty
> ruled that the USG could punish him for that, regardless of the First
> Amendment.
>
> (The great jurist Holmes, fond of sententious sayings, was also admired by
> some peculiar people for his ruling in Buck v. Bell [1927], permitting the
> involuntary sterilization of a young Virgina woman: "Three generations of
> imbeciles are enough." Expert testimony came from a field worker for the
> "Eugenics Record Office" -- Dr. Arthur Estabrook...


No relation, I presume?

I agree that O.W. Holmes Jr. was significantly overrated as a jurist.



> Nazi eugenics legislation was based on the American practice, established
> by Holmes; the US SC has never reversed the general concept of eugenic
> sterilization.)
>
> And Holmes' decision in Schenck was not overturned for 50 years. In
> Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the court limited the scope of banned speech to
> that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action
> (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current SC standard -- the
> government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to
> inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
>
> Obviously the hate speech that Jenifer et al. want banned does not pass
> that test.  --CGE
>
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>

>  While I do not entirely disagree with you on this Carl, I do think there
>> are
>> certain special occasions in which freedom of speech and action are and
>> should be limited (i.e., screaming "fire" in a crowded theater); but
>> clearly
>> a precisely stated standard like "speech and actions that present a
>> provable
>> clear and present danger of inciting others to take actions that create a
>> provable and clear danger or in themselves create such a clear and
>> provable
>> danger" should be established and used in exercising both prior and
>> after-the-fact censorship, which should be determined in a court of law
>> with
>> rights to appeal.  I think that this holds for all categories of speech
>> and
>> action including "hate speech."
>>
>> In reference to the subject line, " Lou Dobbs is dangerous," we are all
>> dangerous.  All the animals are equally dangerous; but some are more
>> effective than others in being dangerous.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090813/dd327300/attachment.html