Freedom of speech is dead in Minnesota if you are white!
- Thread starter Fasteddie24
- Start date
Now it all makes sense. He was eatin them Hotshoe South Carolina organic steaks!
Those are the words of a successful @Gibbs_dontbanmetom before he was persecuted by an HROT mod named Tom and had to change his user name to something that’s totally not in any way whatsoever a grievance against Tom the mod and banning even though it says “dontbanmetom.”
Gibbs also can’t say what his degree is in and what university he is an esteemed alumnus of because he’s too busy and has to wash his (thinning) hair.
What a dumb *** you are. You can't even get the state right you moron. You actually believe in this Commie sh&t.
1.1M views · 60K reactions | Democratic Communists | Bill Maher
Democratic Communists
www.facebook.com
Tell us more about your feminine steaks old timerWhat a dumb *** you are. You can't even get the state right you moron. You actually believe in this Commie sh&t.
1.1M views · 60K reactions | Democratic Communists | Bill Maher
Democratic Communists
So his alleged bad deeds make hers acceptable?
I thought Republicans were the party of personal accountability.
You are one of those grandpas aren't you.
No wonder no one visits you on the old folks home.
Free speech does not mean a person is free of the consequences of exercising their right to free speech.
Dude is 90 years old and his kids won't take his grandkids to see their racist crazy old grandpa at the old folks home even on Father's Day.
Dude has all the time in the world.
After eating our steaks, your mouth is ready for anything. ANYTHING
Republicans are just the party where straight whites win period.
And if a straight white doesn’t win, then the entire world is going to hell in a handbasket
It’s rigged when they don’t win.
This is factually misleading. He pled guilty to a super sweetheart plea deal. Nothing was “dismissed in the interest of justice.” The guy they’re referencing here should probably just be given a death sentence at this point though. He surely appears to be a monster.
with that said, you MAGAs need to stop believing every single thing you read from far right accounts. Take a few mins to read up on something before posting.
Have you looked into how the SCOTUS has ruled regarding so-called "hate speech," nigga?
Or is you holdin' out for packin' dat Court wit' twenny-three justiceses?
But there can be no criminal punishment for speech, according to the constitution, and there was.
I’m glad dems got their little victory over Shiloh. It just took more power away from the word. More people are going to test the limits of speech now because we don’t want to end up like Britain.
This will backfire on Dems just like everything else they do. Like getting the police body cams. Lol
This will backfire on Dems just like everything else they do. Like getting the police body cams. Lol
Congratulations, you and this chick side with Gibbs. That alone should tell you that you are wrong.
You can not stand up in a movie theater and start yelling fire.
I don’t know who Gibbs is. He and Mclovin are on ignore because they are the idiots that causes the invasion.
But on to Shiloh, I’m proud to be on the side of free speech. I might not like what she says but I’ll defend her right to say it because I’m not a moron communist.
Yes you can
Glad I can teach you something today
Yelling Fire in Theater: Legal Nuance | Shared Grok Conversation
Is it always illegal to yell fire in a movie theater
grok.com
No, it is not always illegal.
The common claim that “you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is a misstatement of free-speech law. It comes from a non-binding analogy (dictum) in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, not a rule that makes the act categorically illegal.
What Justice Holmes actually wrote
In Schenck, the Court upheld convictions under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets during World War I. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, used this illustration:
“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
Key qualifications in the original:
• The shout must be false.
• It must cause a panic.
The popular version often drops “falsely” and adds “crowded,” turning a limited analogy into an absolute ban that never existed as binding law.
Current legal standard
The “clear and present danger” test from Schenck was later refined and largely superseded by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under Brandenburg, the government may punish speech only when it is:
• Directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and
• Likely to produce such action.
Falsely shouting “fire” is not automatically unprotected speech under the First Amendment. Whether it leads to liability depends on the facts (intent, actual consequences, jurisdiction).
Practical realities
• If there is a real fire (or you reasonably believe there is), shouting it is not illegal—and is often the responsible thing to do.
• Even a false shout may not result in charges if it causes no panic or harm.
• If a false shout intentionally or recklessly causes a stampede, injury, or emergency response, it can lead to state-level charges such as disorderly conduct, false reporting of an emergency, or (in extreme cases) more serious offenses tied to resulting harm. Some local ordinances historically targeted false fire alarms in public gatherings, but these are ordinary criminal laws, not a special First Amendment exception that makes the act “always illegal.”
In short, the phrase is a well-known but overstated analogy about limits on speech that creates clear, immediate danger. It is not a blanket prohibition, and context (truth, consequences, and applicable state or local law) determines any legal consequences.
/
I look forward to everyone being able to freely speak their mind. Is that a problem for you?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. It just isn't. You may not agree with that, but it is the truth.
I am also a firm believer in the First Amendment. But what she did broke Minnesota law. And as the Supreme Court has recognized that fighting words are not protected by the 1A, I don't think that it will be overturned based on that.