[jlgreco]

> "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right?

It is an example of nothing of the sort, since that scenario never happened. That hypothetical scenario was dreamed up to justify the arrest of a war/draft protester for what was plainly political speech.

[TwiztidK]

Actually, that scenario has happened. It was never tried in court, but yelling "Fire" in a crowded building has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster

[eli]

Yeah, I know... it's a metaphor. The point is that you don't have the right to literally say whatever words you want, absolutely whenever you want (nor, I think, should you).

The TSA stuff is bonkers, though, and I think totally unconstitutional.

[aliakbarkhan]

No, you don't know. As the comment you replied to and misunderstood pointed out, that metaphor was originally used in the context of a SCOTUS ruling which made it a criminal act to distribute anti-draft pamphlets -- a ruling which was overturned in 1969. By continuing to invoke it, you're misunderstanding the original intent and also perpetuating the myth that the phrase has any basis in current U.S. law.

[eli]

I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making especially if we both agree that one cannot, in fact, expect first amendment protection for falsely yelling fire in a theater.

[coldtea]

No, he DOES now. The original intent was, beside whatever political motivation, to give an "example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment". Exactly as he wrote.