• BeegYoshi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The point I’m making is that the “fire” is a classic example of speech that isn’t protected in the US, but with this ruling there’s no way to prove intent. So what if I sat down and continued watching the movie afterwards? I just got over the delusion. And someone with tourette’s would probably apologize, try to calm people down, or even avoid a theater altogether. I’m pretty sure that someone with a peanut allergy can’t sue a peanut farm if they go visit and sample the produce; if you know there’s an extra danger for you specifically in performing an activity then you are responsible.

    Not to mention tourette’s could never cause targeted, violent, electronic-message based harassment either. This is a focused, intentional action.

    • GuyDudeman@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      In this particular case, I believe the accused should be an inpatient at a mental health facility, especially because of the violent threats that were made. There is no way he should be allowed to walk free and continue doing this to people.

      In the case of someone with Tourette’s yelling “Fire! Titties! Fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede - they are still not responsible, nor would they be ruled responsible for any deaths that occur, and that’s 100% correct in my view.

    • effingjoe@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t how it will affect your overall stance, but the “Yelling fire in a crowded theater” (aka, “clear and present danger”) test, which comes from Schenck v. United States, was overturned in 1979 with the case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which gave us the “Imminent Lawless Action” test, instead. This test requires:

      • intent to speak, and
      • imminence of lawlessness, and
      • likelihood of lawlessness

      Yelling fire in a crowded theater is only illegal if it meets that test-- all three requirements-- on a case by case basis.