🚀 go-pugleaf

(Those new to netnews should note that I'm quoting a quote, citing both
the author and the person who quoted him.)

In article <1992Nov6.023417.26235@news.eng.convex.com> gardner@convex.com
(Steve Gardner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct30.165406.5853@netcom.com> strnlght@netcom.com
>(David Sternlight) writes:

>>[] the Supreme
>>Court decision that the right to free speech does not extend to
>>falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

As I understand it, the right to free speech/press means:

 - The government can't stop you in advance from making such utterances
   (as by cutting out your tongue or confiscating your newspaper).

 - The government is unhampered in punishing you afterward, if, for
   example, your statements result in harm or the risk of harm to others.

 - The government can pass laws to define in advance what sort of
   behavior will be punished.

The "fire in a crowded theater" scenario is repeatedly and continually
raised by the enemies of free speech.  This is the first time I have
EVER seen a claim that the Supreme Court decided that no right to make
such an utterance exists.  Can you give us a citation?

-- 
=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=	=
Michael McClary						mcclary@netcom.com
For faster response, address electronic mail to:	michael@node.com