Social Media First Amendment Protected Fire Protection: No More Protected Tweets!

[mascale]

The apparent origin of the usual norm, "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater: Is Not Amendment One Protected Expression of Dissent," is the invention of the Fire Alarm(?)! People knew about lethal fires in crowded spaces. A Right-wing expressionist can yell, "Revengeance." No one knows what that is supposed to mean. That can be regarded protected. Marching orders with a strong-showing outcome are shown just this week to have clear meaning. There are even follow-up remarks, inciting an aberrant outcome.

Off go the social media lights, Amendment One protecting: More likely to be upheld.

Is It Illegal to Falsely Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater?

In 1919, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. sort of made it seem like it was against the law to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, so we understand if you’re confused.

www.mentalfloss.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, of some fable-maker's tale: Is likely said to be Constitutionally protected prayer: Go Figger(?)! Especially in the Red States--going back to the Imperial Roman custom: Even babies can be immediately cast out, Safe Haven Baby Boxes !)

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

The apparent origin of the usual norm, "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater: Is Not Amendment One Protected Expression of Dissent," is the invention of the Fire Alarm(?)! People knew about lethal fires in crowded spaces. A Right-wing expressionist can yell, "Revengeance." No one knows what that is supposed to mean. That can be regarded protected. Marching orders with a strong-showing outcome are shown just this week to have clear meaning. There are even follow-up remarks, inciting an aberrant outcome.

Off go the social media lights, Amendment One protecting: More likely to be upheld.

Is It Illegal to Falsely Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater?

In 1919, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. sort of made it seem like it was against the law to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, so we understand if you’re confused.

www.mentalfloss.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, of some fable-maker's tale: Is likely said to be Constitutionally protected prayer: Go Figger(?)! Especially in the Red States--going back to the Imperial Roman custom: Even babies can be immediately cast out, Safe Haven Baby Boxes !)

Soon liberals will be tweeting each other only.

 

[mascale]

Even a speaker phone is constitutionally protected. What the speaker communicates, and what the listeners comprehend: Is the Amendment One issue. Anyone does not sue the speaker phone company.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, of some fable-maker's tale: Is likely said to be Constitutionally protected prayer: Go Figger(?)! Especially in the Red States--going back to the Imperial Roman custom: Even babies can be immediately cast out, Safe Haven Baby Boxes !)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The apparent origin of the usual norm, "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater: Is Not Amendment One Protected Expression of Dissent," is the invention of the Fire Alarm(?)! People knew about lethal fires in crowded spaces. A Right-wing expressionist can yell, "Revengeance." No one knows what that is supposed to mean. That can be regarded protected. Marching orders with a strong-showing outcome are shown just this week to have clear meaning. There are even follow-up remarks, inciting an aberrant outcome.

Off go the social media lights, Amendment One protecting: More likely to be upheld.

Is It Illegal to Falsely Shout 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater?

In 1919, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. sort of made it seem like it was against the law to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, so we understand if you’re confused.

www.mentalfloss.com

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, of some fable-maker's tale: Is likely said to be Constitutionally protected prayer: Go Figger(?)! Especially in the Red States--going back to the Imperial Roman custom: Even babies can be immediately cast out, Safe Haven Baby Boxes !)

The thread premise makes no sense.

No one is advocating that the government enact measures that preempt or restrict speech on social media.

Otherwise, social media are at liberty to edit their content as they see fit, as the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private entities, and how they edit their content doesn’t ‘violate’ free speech.

In the ‘theater’ of social media conservatives may yell ‘fire’ absent punitive measures by government; and private social media may edit the reckless, irresponsible speech of conservatives absent conflicting with the First Amendment.

 

[mascale]

The applicable message is that social media can restrict threatening communication, even directed at their own employees and the households of said staff. The further contention is that they could be held liable, if they did not so act: But based on content liability, given account access availability.

It is not premised that aberrant, lethal, behavior outcomes are usual. The Marching Orders have been shown widely public, widely understood in the one specific crowd. The behavior is aberrant, needing a containment.

Amendment One can in fact be construed to be supportive of eliminating threatening, even nuclear-weapons making: Content. Other content needs to be able to proceed, subsequent aberrant events. Unknown is what the Trumped-Up people were willing to do next.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Matt 25: 14-30, of some fable-maker's tale: Is likely said to be Constitutionally protected prayer: Go Figger(?)! Especially in the Red States--going back to the Imperial Roman custom: Even babies can be immediately cast out, Safe Haven Baby Boxes !)