Free Speech versus "Fire!" in a crowded theater

[dross]

So, I should be able to fire hundreds of rounds into the air with my AR. It's victimless until someone is hit. And then they must prove it was me doing it. If I can get all my neighbors to fire into the air, it will be really hard to prove whose bullet caused it. And the cops must stand by until they have an actual victim.

Pass the bong and let's order some more pizza and wish we could get a girl to go out with us. After all, we're really, really smart guys.

 

[christman]

I got arrested for yelling RAMBONE in the theater.

Luckily, once I threatened with his presence at court, they took their boot of my neck and bought me some lottery tickets.

 

[steveh_131]

Pass the bong and let's order some more pizza and wish we could get a girl to go out with us. After all, we're really, really smart guys.

Instead let's toss around scenarios that never happen as proof that we need more nanny state intervention.

 

[steveh_131]

In fact, how about a federal law that bans shooting your firearms in any location except a federally approved and inspected firing range.

Can't have our great civilization turned into the wild west, now can we?

 

[rambone]

So, I should be able to fire hundreds of rounds into the air with my AR. It's victimless until someone is hit. And then they must prove it was me doing it. If I can get all my neighbors to fire into the air, it will be really hard to prove whose bullet caused it. And the cops must stand by until they have an actual victim.

Make it about property rights and it makes sense. Unless the bullets are disappearing into the stratosphere, they are returning to earth on someone's property. That makes your careless act a property rights violation at best, and at worst could result in someone's death. So no, I don't call that act victimless, unless your projectiles return to earth on your own property.

An example would be duck hunting. The hunter should ensure that his projectiles are not reaching another person's land, or he would be infringing their right to that property.

Base laws around property, and actual victims, instead of some arbitrary presumption of risk.

 

[dross]

Make it about property rights and it makes sense. Unless the bullets are disappearing into the stratosphere, they are returning to earth on someone's property. That makes your careless act a property rights violation at best, and at worst could result in someone's death. So no, I don't call that act victimless, unless your projectiles return to earth on your own property.

An example would be duck hunting. The hunter should ensure that his projectiles are not reaching another person's land, or he would be infringing their right to that property.

Until they could prove my projectiles were landing on their property, it would be victimless, though, right?

 

[rambone]

Until they could prove my projectiles were landing on their property, it would be victimless, though, right?

No, just unenforceable.

 

[CarmelHP]

Instead let's toss around scenarios that never happen as proof that we need more nanny state intervention.

And who said, "we need more nanny state intervention?" Everyone with a lick of sense has said that yelling fire in crowded theatre, recklessly endangering those within, is a crime, and has always been a crime. Where did the nanny state strawman come from?

 

[rambone]

Pass the bong and let's order some more pizza and wish we could get a girl to go out with us. After all, we're really, really smart guys.

Isn't that really what INGO is all about? Having a few laughs and discussing philosophy, trying to change the world, one forum post at a time.

 

[CarmelHP]

Pass the bong and let's order some more pizza and wish we could get a girl to go out with us. After all, we're really, really smart guys.

Did the new shipment from Tijuana arrive last night? That would explain a lot.

 

[steveh_131]

And who said, "we need more nanny state intervention?" Everyone with a lick of sense has said that yelling fire in crowded theatre, recklessly endangering those within, is a crime, and has always been a crime. Where did the nanny state strawman come from?

Everyone who thinks we need the government to tell us what we can say, what we can smoke, eat, drink, drive, shoot, build etc. Even when we are doing no harm to anyone.

If you read the politics section much you will realize that it certainly isn't a strawman.

 

[steveh_131]

Did the new shipment from Tijuana arrive last night? That would explain a lot.

There's laws against that stuff. Which obviously means nobody ever smokes it. Duh.

 

[CarmelHP]

Everyone who thinks we need the government to tell us what we can say, what we can smoke, eat, drink, drive, shoot, build etc. Even when we are doing no harm to anyone.

If you read the politics section much you will realize that it certainly isn't a strawman.

Yell "fire" in your own damn house and I think everybody is OK with it. Context is all.

 

[CarmelHP]

There's laws against that stuff. Which obviously means nobody ever smokes it. Duh.

I dunno, apparently there are some ne'er-do-wells around here who think that smoking it makes them sound smarter.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Both are reckless endangerment, if you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre without justification you could harm property and people so, ipso facto, it meets your requirement. Are you saying if one shoots at a group of schoolchildren, and damages only one's own property then it would be OK? Haven't hurt anyone, no victim, right?

If we armed our children like responsible adults should, this kind of scenario would never play out.