[jakebasile]

People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

With the regularity I see it parroted I very much hope the former is more common than the latter.

As to the proposal of labeling content, who decides what is news and what isn't? The government? What agency and how will that agency be staffed and regulated? What redress does an outlet have if they feel they are unjustly labeled because their opinion differs from that censor board?

What if it's not a government body but an industry body? Many of the same issues apply since the majority will have power over the minority. This particular mode of self-censorship has precedent, as the movie, video game, and music industries created their own censor boards in lieu of government regulation (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA).

[thaumasiotes]

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

I don't follow this entire line of thought. As with your parent comment:

>> Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

"THEREFORE, any idea supported by this argument is a bad idea"?

How can the provenance of the argument be relevant?

[dragonwriter]

> Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

No, the “fire in a crowded theater” thing isn't an argument, it's a claim about the law often used as a premise in other arguments.

The problem with that claim is that it's a claim about the application of Constitutional law and limits to free speech in a particular fact pattern that was dicta unsupported by prior case law offered as part of the explanation for a decision which has itself since been overturned as inappropriately limiting freedom of speech in a way directly contrary to the core purpose of the Constitutional protection.

That is:

* It was not a statement of the law grounded in valid authority,

* It wouldn't be valid authority on the law itself even if the decision it was articulated in was valid authority, and

* The case it was articulated in is, in fact, no longer valid authority.

Therefore, any argument which takes it as a premise stands on sand, as the premise is unsupported.

[thaumasiotes]

None of your comment makes any sense as a defense of the comments I asked about. They go:

> please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

and

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

Nothing about either of those claims would change if Schenck had been written right into the constitution. Schenck would still be a decision allowing the government to imprison someone for sedition, and people using the quote to justify censorship would still tautologously be divisible into those who know the provenance and are looking to justify censorship, and those who don't know the provenance and are looking to justify censorship.

But while both comments would be just as valid in that hypothetical world as they are now, your comment in their defense would be completely wrong. You appear to be defending a point that neither party I responded to was even interested in making. I conclude that those two original comments are worthless, because they have no bearing on anything relevant.

[jakebasile]

The provenance shows what the argument can be and has been used to justify - censorship of thoughts deemed unacceptable by people in a position of power.