Are Trump and Vance crying fire in a crowded theater?

[Cyrano]

Regarding their lies about Springfield, Ohio, it seems to me they are creating an extremely hazardous environment. And if one or more people end up dead because of it, wouldn't they both be guilty of manslaughter at a minimum?

J.D. Vance has admitted he'd make up whatever is necessary. So he's all but telling us that he's yelling fire, although he's fully aware there is no fire.

This seems to be an issue for you lawyers out there. Is it legal for Trump and Vance to continue to create a potentially deadly situation? And at a minimum, can't a restraining order be put on them?

[onecaliberal]

1. The rapist has been doing it for 9 years.

[Cyrano]

4. No reason not to bring charges now, relating

to the very specific circumstances taking place in Springfield.

I don't know whether the charges could be brought by the DOJ, the State, or the County. Again, this a question for the lawyers on DU.

[RidinWithHarris]

2. I see you aren't sufficiently cynical about our legal system

Even if an ordinary citizen might provoke a judge into slapping them down with a restraining order for something like this, that would, it and of itself would be quite a stretch as a First Amendment issue. The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" concept generally only applies to something with exactly that kind of immediate and imminent risk of harm being posed.

Against someone in the public spotlight with a ready-to-go legal team? Pshaw!

[Kaleva]

3. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech

Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969.

[rsdsharp]

10. The actual quote from Schenck v. United States was

“falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” (emphasis added).

Brandenburg allows prosecution for speech that poses a danger of "imminent lawless action."

[Kaleva]

12. Fleeing a crowded theater isn't lawless behavior

So falsely yelling fire is protected speech.

[rsdsharp]

15. It hasn't been ruled on. In his concurrence, with which Black agreed, Douglas, a free speech absolutist

called it it "a classic case where speech is brigaded with action,” and that it might be the only type of case where speech might be prosecuted.

If the court overruled the clear and present danger test, it can overrule the imminent lawless action test given the appropriate factual situation.

[Kaleva]

16. I'll concede that you know more about legal matters then I do.

[orthoclad]

5. Yes, restraining order,

like his gag order. The good people of Springfield can't wait until Jan 20. Someone could get killed.

[onenote]

6. No. Prior restraints on speech are presumptively unconstitutional.

[Cyrano]

8. And what happens if one or more deaths occur

because of that speech?

Seems to me that the bomb threats and the murder threats in Springfield are due to speech that was designed to incite such an outcome. Can a DU lawyer chime in on this?

[onenote]

11. I'm a DU lawyer.

And you may not agree or like my opinion, but since you asked for it -- the answer still is no.

[Kaleva]

13. There are lots of folks at FR saying the same thing

If you are correct, one can hold them equally liable.

[yorkster]

7. They are outside the theater with matches.

They keep lighting the matches and trying to set the old wooden theater ablaze.

They intend to keep trying.

[newdayneeded]

9. It is illegal, but they are republicans.

So it's A-OK!

[Wonder Why]

14. YES.