When Can Speech Be Banned? | Schenck v. United States

[@iammrbeat]

I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court! Check it out here: amzn.to/3p8nV64 or visit www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html.

[@frostyframe]

I disagree with the court in this specific case. Yes, clear present danger is a good way to determine if speech should be restricted, but I don't think the speech in this case was inherently dangerous. I think that forcing people into the front lines of wars poses a clear and present danger to *them*, definitely more so than a pamphlet that encourages people to critically think of the nations policies. People should be free to criticize their nation's policies even if those in power don't like the outcome of that speech, even in Wartime.

[@mosquerajoseph7305]

Preach

[@iammrbeat]

Yep, I couldn't have said it better myself. The Clear and Present Danger doctrine was totally reasonable, but how they interpreted it for this case just always sat wrong with me.

[@rangerknight4247]

As an anarchist and Anarcho socialist myself we all as humans have the right to say what we wish by the virtue of being human you are entitled to that right it would be a cruel injustice to deny any speech in this world to any man woman or child therefore i have to conclude the court was wrong .

[@mickeyg7219]

The court never been consistent on it anyway. They could consider any speeches that goes against the state's interests as "dangerous," but when it comes to protecting group or individual's rights, it's a different story.

[@ps5-pro]

@@rangerknight4247 anarcho socialist is the new thing 14 year olds like

[@ThatFanBoyGuy]

I would not equate falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater to questioning the draft

[@iammrbeat]

Me neither

[@Compucles]

Yeah, inciting people to dodge the draft (not just questioning it) is even worse.

[@cl8804]

i would, however, equate us participation in ww1 and the draft in particular to falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater...

[@Gomer._.]

You would if you weren’t anti American 🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🎆🎇⛪️🔫

[@konstantincvetanovic5357]

​@@Compucles depends on wheter your country is attacked or not. Dont see how critique of draft is "clear and present danger" if your drafting people to literally fight or the other side of the world

[@josueaguilar6440]

I am an Mexican American law student in Mexico and thanks to your videos, I am learning a lot about these kinds of precedents

[@freddyfootstomps6557]

That’s so awesome!

[@iammrbeat]

I am so glad they can help you. Best wishes to you finishing law school.

[@Nudnik1]

Zapata fan here...

[@kevinaguilar7541]

Curious, what made you leave the U.S? Did mexico have better institutions for law?

[@josueaguilar6440]

@@kevinaguilar7541 Nah, I was a kid when we moved to Mexico. My parents miss their family, so they decided to come back. But we have the same problems that you guys have: a president that let you down, a worse opposition, corporate greed and corruption. But our Supreme Court made abortions legal in all Mexico and that minor have the right to abort no matter what :)

[@TheRennDawg]

Don't yell fire in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire.

[@iammrbeat]

True lol

[@t.s.180]

It would be lovely if people would stop thinking of Schenck and in particular the "fire in a crowded theater" line first when it comes to First Amendment jurisprudence. Schenck has largely been overturned by Brandenburg vs. Ohio and Holmes's statement about the theater (and almost everyone forgets that it was falsely yelling) was dicta.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah, it's best to always learn about Schenck with regards to Brandenburg, as Brandenburg clearly overrode it

[@mixturebeatz]

"[The charged) would have been fine if they distributed the pamphlets during peace but the pamphlets were hurting the war effort so they are subject to pain of prosecution" This is literal tyranny. It's okay for us to remove constitutional freedoms if that freedom "hurts the war effort." The entire point of the freedom of speech is so that you can speak out against the actions of your government without pain of prosecution. How does this not include military orders? Shouting "fire" in a theater is not speaking out against the action of your government.

[@iammrbeat]

I agree with you. I guess I'm not as much of a radical as I thought. :)

[@Compucles]

The point is that they weren't *only* speaking against the government's actions. They were actively calling for illegal draft dodging. Military orders are one of the things that *absolutely* shouldn't apply unless ordered to commit a war crime!

[@mixturebeatz]

@@Compucles I did not see them calling for illegal draft dodging but simply informing people of the legitimate reasons they can not join the draft. I assume that back in that day legal loopholes regarding personal rights were probably pretty obscure knowledge that most people didn't know. But if you want to drop a source that I might have missed in the video or another one not mentioned I'd definitely be willing to learn! We can agree to disagree about whether or not actively telling military members to disobey military orders should fall under the right to free speech.

[@Compucles]

@@mixturebeatz What legitimate reasons?! They were flat-out telling people to disobey their draft notices, which is clearly illegal. They weren't giving them advice on potential ways to be declared draft exempt.

[@taboochatter9841]

@@Compucles yeah but you forget that the draft notices are also clearly illegal. The government doesn't have the authority to treat the citizenry like expendable livestock and mandatory. If a law is unconstitutional, it is the duty of any patriot to break it. I'm surprised there weren't more patriots refusing to comply with the draft🤔🤔

[@Daredsnail]

I don't think that being in war time should have affected the outcome of this case. Under this assumption couldn't the government dictate what people are allowed to say based off of what they deem to be appropriate at the time? Not sure if that is how it has been applied, but that was my first thought when hearing that. Good video as always Mr. Beat :)

[@iammrbeat]

I agree with you, and thanks for the kind words

[@zachmeyn3460]

It also gives the government an incontrovertible to continuously be at war because that gives them more power which is a bad incentive structure

[@mickeyg7219]

The US government has a lot of provisions to give them more power as long as it's under the pretense of "national security." In the end, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, it's incapable of actually doing anything to people with an actual power to enforce their wills (but I think that's an intended feature by people who wrote the paper anyway).

[@Noam_.Menashe]

@@zachmeyn3460 if the government really wanted more power they come of get it themselves. War comes with large disadvantages, civilians are hurt, treasury takes a hit, innovation becomes largely war-based, less trade, economy turns into a war economy and so on. Not to mention that a continuous war would probably cause large civil unrest if the government doesn't go fully totalitarian.

[@zachmeyn3460]

@@Noam_.Menashe my point is that by giving the government the power to be tyrannical during times of war, you incentivize the government to go to war which is bad for average citizens. Idk why auto-correct said incontrovertible

[@HistoryandHeadlines]

As a random note, I have been reading Mr. Beat's ultimate guide to U.S. presidential election book and am currently on the election of 1824!

[@iammrbeat]

Oh wow, I didn't even know you got a copy. Thank you so much for that!

[@HistoryandHeadlines]

@@iammrbeat I'm planning on assigning it as a reference for my 100-level American history students in the fall 2022 semester.

[@floralpatterns21]

This is one of the most demonstrably wrong court decisions I've ever seen in this series, wow

[@iammrbeat]

I'm surprised so many agree with us, tbh

[@arcanehighlighter6780]

@@iammrbeat You’re essentially the based version of AlternateHistoryHub, or rather he’s the unbased version of you

[@bobbyferg9173]

@@arcanehighlighter6780 True Alternate History Hub does have no bias

[@CStone-xn4oy]

I disagree because the same general principle was used during the Covid-19 pandemic to pass laws and regulations that under normal circumstances would be a clear violation of rights. You can also point to Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War, specifically what he did in Maryland.

[@arcanehighlighter6780]

@@CStone-xn4oy Yeah that’s definitely a gray zone. To put it frankly though I view more importance in anti war efforts than I do to people freaking out about masking. That said there’s definitely something to be said about the dangers of trying to stop a war effort in the middle of a World War

[@mlittlemlittle2966]

It's interesting that how wars always are the most likely sources for exceptions of the sort, when it's against "us". And of course, the obvious problem that falsely yelling "fire" misrepresents facts, which will make a whole theatre run to the exit, while the "criminal" dissented against the morality and legality of the draft, which is an opinion that can be rejected by the enlisted. My fav Mr beat series!

[@FirebirdPrince]

Yup. I'm not surprised that he later was upset with how his reasoning was used. It's a very specific analogy used for something technically different

[@hendrikoras5162]

You're such a great teacher! Here in Estonia we need more people like you in the midst of our teacher shortage.

[@JerryHunt92]

Was at the Sox game listening to “I hate the suburbs” we were up against the Royals and my Bears play the Chiefs next Saturday. Kansas is awesome, congratulations on Tuesday’s vote 🇺🇸

[@LucRice]

Let’s update the phrase of yelling fire in the theater to yelling bomb in an airport

[@themackiswack]

hey mr. beat, as someone who’s in AP Gov currently, these videos help a lot. What really got me hooked was the US v Miller case, because i live in Siloam Springs! It’s super cool seeing a big case like that occurring in my town. Keep up the great work!

[@shinnaay]

Never thought I'd be so excited to learn about US case law as an Aussie! Thanks as always Mr Beat! 🤗

[@Sleepingfishie]

Thank you for these they helped me get through 1L year! Looking forward to Dobbs and others

[@iammrbeat]

I'm so glad they helped :)

[@iammrbeat]

When should speech be limited? Wait...SHOULD speech be limited?

[@malte2505]

hell nah

[@ashtoncollins868]

I don’t think so I don’t really know because there’s incidents like what he says but then again The 1st amendment

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

Only if you can prove that it harms people, but I think free speech should be allowed in most almost all cases, I also think heat speech should be allowed, it’s still free speech, I think when people say they’re free-speech absolutist they aren’t actually, nobody is a free-speech absolutist, I think it’s just like when people say they are for absolute freedom nobody is truly for absolute freedom.

[@nicksaffari4412]

never limit speech

[@TheFedGuy]

Only when it is a danger in specific circumstances, such as misinformation during a war or crisis, but that also means that we ought to be careful to either avoid or handle such situations very carefully, since they could come back too haunt us in the near future.

[@petitthom2886]

In France we have some limits to free speech, most importantly the Pleven and Gayssot laws. An academic (Robert Faurisson) was fired from his university based on the Gayssot law because in his articles he denied the importance of Holocaust. I don’t know however if such limits exist to the federal level in the United States. Great video Mr Beat ! Thanks for your work ;)

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah nothing like that exists here. Americans would go nuts if that were to happen! Thank you, Thomas. :)

[@NYKevin100]

Schenck has been de facto overturned by Brandenburg, as Mr. Beat explains at 3:42. Holocaust denial and other forms of hate speech are very likely protected by the First Amendment under US law, despite how odious they are. Holmes's dissent in Abrams goes a long way to explaining why (because the Court eventually went on to repudiate Abrams and Schenck), but see also the majority opinion in United States v. Stevens (2010) for a more modern discussion of these issues and in particular, an explanation of why the Supreme Court is so reluctant to let the government criminalize "bad" speech.

[@cl8804]

you hella gay

[@vicentemorua4517]

I cannot say enough how much I appreciate these videos for my AP Government class!

[@iammrbeat]

Well I am very encouraged to hear that you find them useful. I first and foremost make them for students. :)

[@25756881]

So, you can talk against the war when the country isn't in a war. So, basically what the Court says, you're free to say whatever you want as long as it isn't a relevant topic.

[@iammrbeat]

Oh snap. Well put

[@Compucles]

There are still other limits that apply at almost any time such as slander and libel.

[@cyrusthegreat7472]

Schenck wasn't just talking against the war.

[@yuuneeq9494]

I don't necessarily fully agree with Wendel Holmes' perspective on the case, but holy crap is his argument powerful. Also, good on him for being upset by people abusing his words.

[@vrextar]

I'm generally a loose interpreter of the Constitution, however, I completely disagree with this decision. The 1st amendment is very clear. It says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except during wars then, it's totally cool to ban whatever speech they want to." This was MIC propaganda before the MIC term had even been coined. Hurting the war effort. BS. They were mad they couldn't con more people into taking part in a war they didn't want to be forced to be part of. I do agree about the false-fire-in-a-theater type thing, somewhat, but this wasn't the case in this case, IMO.

[@jenniferdomingo1264]

I would have sided with Schenck

[@leftyguitarist8989]

Free speech should only be limited if your goal is to threaten, slander, and or incite violence.

[@iammrbeat]

Succinctly put. I dig it

[@abrahamlincoln937]

Agreed.

[@nicholasstafford1756]

Nice video as always, I remember studying this case in government class last year

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you. Yeah I should have made this one years ago for all those AP Government students.

[@redjirachi1]

You can just feel Cypher's hatred for Woodrow Wilson while watching this video

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

Horrible decision one of the worst they have ever issued

[@iamseamonkey6688]

i could maybe understand this decision more in a case where the united states was directly under threat, for example if there was a foreign army on US soil. However US troops were supporting foreign nations in a war being fought on a different continent. The United States was under zero threat from anybody really and thus there was no urgent imperative to keep up enlistments.

[@Compucles]

They were still an active participant in a fully declared war. Just because one participant is lucky enough to avoid any battles on its own soil doesn't really matter. The Americans who were fighting in Europe were under greater threat if they couldn't get proper reinforcements. Maybe the draft wasn't actually needed for that war, but since it was indeed used, they weren't allowed to fight against it or encourage others to do so.

[@abrahamlincoln937]

The Espionage and Sedition Acts were terrible laws.

[@iammrbeat]

See, Abraham Lincoln now knows what is up. :)

[@abrahamlincoln937]

@@iammrbeat Indeed!

[@ahsanumar01]

Based

[@danhworth100]

Surprised this was unanimous

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Loving these Supreme Court briefs Mr. Beat!

[@littleferrhis]

This is why I always hate it when people who should know better, like lawyers and even Vice Presidents nominees(especially on the left which is so ironic) use “fire in a crowded theater” statement to justify limits on freedom of speech. Like if they knew where it came from they would not use it.

[@Frozenfan-qr8qc]

It was amazing that i learned so much about usa history from you and i’m going to Washington DC Mr. Beat

[@iammrbeat]

That's amazing. Have a wonderful trip. You're going to love it!

[@mrmr446]

Clear and present danger seems to have been interpreted broadly, at no time during US participation in WW1 was the country in 'clear and present' danger.

[@iammrbeat]

Mos def it was interpreted broadly

[@Compucles]

The American soldiers waiting for reinforcements from more drafted soldiers certainly were. As Thor would say, the United States is a people, not just a place.

[@kylerlng]

Congressperson Victor Berger from Milwaukee was another who was arrested under the Espionage Act for similar reasons. Despite being federally indicted, he won election in 1918. Congress refused to seat him, so a special election was held. Berger won again (by a larger margin if I remember correctly). Congress refused again and finally someone else won, but it’s one of my favorite Milwaukee/Wisconsin factoids.

[@lindafromowitz9071]

I agree with the holding of the case, but not the reasoning. It's hard to say that Schenk's speech presented a "clear and present danger." But he certainly was inciting people to break the law, and that is not protected speech, which is why I think the Brandenburg Test makes more sense.

[@taboochatter9841]

In a totalitarian society where only state authority is absolute and people's basic rights are reduced to mere privileges limited and revoked as the state sees fit (like US society today), you're right, encouraging folks to disobey the tyranny of the state is not protected speech. In any society where free speech is regarded and treated as a basic right, it is, though. 😉

[@jbandfriends-gh5bl]

I can sorta agree with the case but I definitely agree that speech is not 100%free. Great video once again Mr Beat

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you. Yeah I'm kind of a radical here, but I mostly disagree with how they decided in this case. 😄

[@jbandfriends-gh5bl]

@@iammrbeat I can go both ways with this case there is no specific rule for limiting speech in the constitution. But on the other hand if someone says something that offends every person on earth it shouldn't be allowed. This case and topic is very opinionated. it's hard to make a clear decision that everyone is happy with.

[@iammrbeat]

@@jbandfriends-gh5bl True. Honestly, I think the Clear and Present Danger doctrine is completely reasonable. It's just that it's still open to much interpretation. 😄

[@Tukeen]

@@iammrbeat Could you explain why exactly would promoting draft dodging cause any danger? I would think going to war is much more dangerous.

[@aaronTGP_3756]

In my personal opinion, speech is not 100% free. It's 99% free. Only in extreme circumstances it be limited. Let society call them out instead of letting the government get its greasy hands in people's personal business. To make it clear again: this is my personal opinion, not objective fact. I am open to other viewpoints (for example, I used to align hardline with Republicans, then became a libertarian, and now generally a centre-leftist).

[@benjamindover4337]

If there is utility in limiting speech, it can be accomplished by cultural norm (the n-word) or through private property rights (yelling fire in a crowded theater). Government should never inhibit speech for any reason, ever.

[@jackmiltons5979]

“I’m going to go your house and kill your entire family, brutally with torturous methods. This is not a threat but a promise.” See what I mean? It should be inhibited in situations such as these or with yelling ‘fire’.

[@iammrbeat]

That was deep. I hadn't quite thought of it like that before. Thank you.

[@milesjolly6173]

I agree.

[@037_]

I’m not sure this works tbh. The counter example I’m thinking about is about how trump invited the insurrectionists to invade the capital - he was on public property when he gave the speech but he should still have to face the legal consequences of the damage his speech caused.

[@legoboy468]

I disagree. Your definition doesn’t cover threats of violence or incitement to violence. It shouldn’t fine to say “I’m gonna kill you” or “let’s go kill all the Jews”. It’s also hard to control culture, you can’t create a cultural norm as easily as you can create a law. I think there can be utility in the state limiting speech, but in this case the court was way off the mark.

[@elchucabagra]

Another one for the books by Mr beat! He's the man! Mr beat is the best! We love you!

[@chrisrae2238]

The draft is unconstitutional, the best soldiers are the ones that choose to be there

[@TennesseeTazz]

Hey, man. I just found your note at Scott Springs, Kansas. I’m following the trail from west to east currently. Most times in Wyoming I struggled to get cell service, and I didn’t see a single Tesla charger, even when I was off the trail traveling along I-80. Also DO NOT take Goodale’s Cutoff around Craters Of The Moon NP In Idaho. You will get stranded out there in the desert in your Tesla. Probably should’ve picked a different wagon for this trip, partner! Lastly, keep your eyes peeled at Three Island Crossing, ID. I was there the day after the extreme rainstorm that flooded many areas in the north west, and the unusual amount of rain washed out part of the river bank exposing lots of things. I found a button, handmade nails, a chest fastener, and broken pieces of ceramic (bowl/plate I’m assuming) All the metal things I found are definitely from the pioneers since you can tell they are handmade, and we’re found at the actual spot on the river bank where they crossed. Good luck on your travels!

[@alonkatz4633]

You should do Laidlaw v. Organ. It's a Marshall court case, that's very important for deception in contract law.

[@iammrbeat]

Dang, that's an obscure case. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

[@A436able]

I agree the result of this case. Yes, the law protects person's free speech, but it does not mean you can say whatever you want in any situation.

[@taboochatter9841]

Yeah, that's literally what "free speech" means verbatim. "You can say whatever you want in any situation." 🤦

[@TNS10000]

BREAKING NEWS:judges employed by the US government sided with US government

[@matthewhedrichjr.5445]

I believe that we do not need to ban speech

[@iammrbeat]

Society and private companies already generally do a sufficient job of that

[@matthewhedrichjr.5445]

@@iammrbeat yep

[@ryanpitasky487]

you may be interested in the paradox of tolerance

[@malte2505]

Nice quality as always!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you

[@Khasidon]

I love the Supreme Court Briefs. It's the only videos I watch on Mr. Beat.

[@havehope646]

Great video as always mr beat you need to make a book on these

[@iammrbeat]

I am in the process of doing just that!

[@havehope646]

@@iammrbeat REALLY O MY GOODNESS AS SOON AS THAT BOOK COMES OUT i promise I will have my mom buy it cause I love history. Shoot im the only one in class who knows who John Tyler is or John quincy adams but I'm so excited for that book

[@comradepetri5085]

I am not a Socialist, but when it comes to US history they always seem to have had the good takes on social issues and were generally ahead of everybody else in that regard

[@andreichura4276]

interesting username for the supposed non-socialist

[@comradepetri5085]

@@andreichura4276 I just think "comrade" sounds kinda cool. Like I said, the socialists were right about a lot of things

[@iammrbeat]

"socialist" is still quite a dirty word here in the United States

[@Compucles]

Maybe in some ways, but their main idea of a state-run economy was definitely terrible.

[@valmid5069]

*Great video analysis Mr. Beat!*

[@Cinnamonfr]

Our history lord has uploaded, thank u for this informative video. These videos are honestly amusing

[@iammrbeat]

Well thank you!

[@Cinnamonfr]

@@iammrbeat No problem!

[@zelgore]

Way more views than the one KZbin thing said my bro, please keep giving us this good knowledgeable content. You are one of the only few who will Mr. Beat. I wish you well friend!

[@omarbelaatar1429]

I came from a meme of a guy thinking that mr beat is mr beast

[@kevinslater4126]

Speech should always be limited when it would cause immediate and recognizable physical harm to others.

[@notify7581]

Congrats on 500k mrbeas.. i mean mr. beat

[@iSluff]

when you see it's a ww1 free speech case and you know it's about to be the most egregious decision you've ever seen

[@iammrbeat]

I really hate the Espionage Act :/

[@abrahamlincoln937]

@@iammrbeat And the Sedition Act.

[@CStone-xn4oy]

While this is a tricky one there is an unspoken principle that the government can bend the rules during times of national emergency such as during a war (see Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or the US federal government and several state governments during the Covid-19 Pandemic). It sucks but governments will do what governments will do.

[@cristopheralexander1583]

Found this guy in a meme literally 2 minute after I make this comment. And 2018 was actually the best year for music.

[@lukesmith1818]

Interesting that this argument is cited so often yet was in defense of a shameful case

[@iammrbeat]

To be fair, it's often cited alongside the Brandenburg case

[@lukesmith1818]

@@iammrbeat you replied to me directly! Big fan of your work, sir

[@lsjameschannel]

These are by far my favorite videos on this platform. I think Island Trees V Pico would be a good one in the current political climate. There is a ton of attention on school boards right now. Several social issues have led many school boards to start taking library books into consideration.

[@ethanoppenheim404]

I took a constitutional law class in high school in which we focused a lot on free speech. We discussed Schenck, Abrams, Gitlow v. NY, NYT v. Sullivan, Texas v. Johnson, etc. The conclusion was that the govt can regulate speech in 4 instances: Libel, slander, obscenity, and speech that is likely to incite violence/threaten national security. The court then has the discretion in determining whether each individual case brought to them meets these definitions based on a certain set of criteria. The question is just a matter of how strict these criteria should be.

[@kristydaly19]

Hey Mr. Beat! I've been watching your channel for a while now and am a huge fan of your Supreme Court Briefs series :). I just wanted to write here how for my public speaking class I talked about book banning that takes place in public schools and libraries and deals with first amendment rights. I studied English for my Associates Degree so this was often talked about in my Lit classes and heared many opinions from my classmates. This was an interesting video and made me think back about the speech I did that was similar.

[@mrrogersrabbit]

Schenck is why "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" drives me so nuts. This analogy rarely applies and was birthed to justify prosecuting the core of first amendment protections. Whenever someone alludes to yelling fire in a crowded theater or says "no right is unlimited", it is not to have a serious and nuanced discussion about the limitations of individual rights. It is to preempt such a discussion and dismiss the fact that their proposal violates our rights. Something that's very relevant today, the day that the House of Representatives passed a blatantly illegal bill that aims to "ensure the second amendment is not unlimited."

[@rebauer2000]

As a kid, I attended an elementary school named Charles M. Schenck in Denver. (Still in operations today but as a "Community School"). I think this is a different Charles Schenck than presented in this video. Anyway we pronounced it like skink. Of course, we kids often called it Stink School. So it's interesting how Mr. Beat pronounced it here.

[@marcello7781]

I think that freedom of speech shouldn't be restricted unless for specific cases where people could actually be harmed, like inciting crimes, violence and terrorism against specific targets, and not simply distributing pamphlets questioning policies such as in this case. In general, I think freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibilities.

[@iammrbeat]

Well put, and that all seems reasonable

[@Compucles]

But they *were* inciting crimes by telling people to dodge the draft!

[@cyrusthegreat7472]

Resisting draft incites violence.

[@sirjuly2791]

Love this series Mr Beat! Keep ‘em coming!

[@ashtoncollins868]

Chief Justice: Edward D. White President During this time: Woodrow WILLLLSON Argued January 9-10, 1919 Decided March 3, 1919 Case Duration: 53 days Decision: 9-0 in favor of US

[@iammrbeat]

Ashton bringing the facts

[@ashtoncollins868]

@@iammrbeat I did these comments on all Supreme Court briefs and election videos thanks Mr. beat

[@illman8876]

The only time speech should be limited is in instances such as the crowded theater example, and direct incitements of violence towards a person or groups of people, and direct threats towards the President of the United States. Other than those, no restrictions on speech should exist under the United States Constitution

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah it's crazy because Ollie Holmes established the Clear and Present Danger doctrine, and then proceeded to immediately misinterpret it. 😬

[@daemonspudguy]

This case is up there with the Dredd Scott case, the Wong Kim Ark case, and the recently decided Dobbs v. Jackson case ad among the worst in the history of the SCOTUS.

[@theroughsketchartist1415]

Dobbs v Jackson was actually one of the best decisions tbh

[@Compucles]

You really want people to have the right to incite lawbreaking? If you disagree with a law, work to change it, but you can't publically call for people to break it without legal consequences. Sometimes, this is actually a good way to incite change such as against the old Jim Crow laws, but the protesters back then still had to be rightfully arrested at the time whenever they broke the law. This was a very good decision (as was Dobbs v. Jackson).

[@Cobra85291]

You are 100% allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire. Ots inciting a panic where people could get trampled is what illegal not the word themselves.

[@axelasdf]

Should add the context that theater fires killed a lot of people back "in the day" and the panic made by claiming it would result in unnecessary harm/deaths.

[@elijahashby]

So basically those kinds of kids in school who say Freedom of speech are actually wrong about how they are exercising the 1st amendment. Very nice! Thanks Mr. Beat!!

[@elijahashby]

As in when the Teacher tells them off about language or what they are saying. Sorry if I didn't clear that up!!

[@nitzan33]

BTW, you can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. There is a Legal Eagle video about it.

[@waynefrench1562]

I like Margaret Chase Smith declaration of consciousness where she said it is ok to have unpopular opinions and to protest. It is very relevant during today times when people are fired for disagreeing with the norm.

[@ThomasAndRandomRobloxGames]

when i search up "mr beat supreme court" i get "mrbeast supreme court" wow mrbeast has done so many awesome videos about the supreme court

[@libertasaudits4965]

3:00 and thus the myth that you can not shout fire in a crowded theater . In the sense that it has never been ruled on specifically by the court. So until someone does it we do not know for sure ;)

[@princepond1633]

Mr Beat, you should do Dobbs v Jackson next

[@gerryofmander8663]

The Brandenburg test (whether the speech is directed to inciting and is likely to incite imminent lawless action) is a far better standard than the clear and present danger doctrine, which, as Schenck demonstrated, effectively allowed the government to criminalize the expression of some views. To be fair, though, the clear and present danger doctrine was an improvement on the previous "bad tendency" test. Through Brandenburg v. Ohio, together with other cases banning viewpoint discrimination, like Texas v. Johnson and Matal v. Tam, and cases like New York Times v. Sullivan that make it extremely difficult for the government to silence its critics, SCOTUS has formulated bounds for free speech that reflect what its primary purpose is: a means of democratic participation, from which no one should be excluded based on their views. Thanks to those decisions, the US currently has by far the strongest free speech protections in the world (I would even go as far as to say the US is the only country in the world that really has free speech). In my view as a European who does not enjoy as strong free speech protections, this should be a matter of immense national pride for every American. Current US free speech protections are also something that Americans should zealously protect, perhaps even by passing a constitutional amendment codifying SCOTUS's existing free speech case law. There is otherwise a danger that SCOTUS's interpretation of the First Amendment will slide back to pre-60s levels in the future and reintroduce viewpoint discrimination. This threat comes from both the hard left and the hard right, where the former wants to criminalize hate speech, and the latter wants "open up" the libel laws and ban things like flag burning. Five Supreme Court justices of either sort, and you can say goodbye to free speech as you know it. You can be sure they'll come up with excuses as to why the First Amendment doesn't protect the things they want to ban.

[@TaliyahP]

Comparing these pamphlets to shouting fire in a theatre is wrong. They are completely different scenarios that present completely different levels of immediate danger. One is a political opinion, the other is a statement that can cause people to be trampled before anyone can actually figure out whats going on. The more of these episodes I watch, the less faith I have in the institution of the Supreme Court.

[@PossessedPotatoBird]

Bro what? Do you know what “reveling against the draft” means? During a war?

[@TaliyahP]

@@PossessedPotatoBird 1) not a bro 2) no I don't cause I never said those words 3) it was a war on another continent, it posed no threat to the sovereignty of the US

[@PossessedPotatoBird]

@@TaliyahP 1; I don’t care 2; You know that America was in the war, right?

[@TaliyahP]

@@PossessedPotatoBird 1) Clearly you do since you took the time to reply 2) In the war doesn't mean there was an immediate threat to the sovereignty of the United States.

[@willkelly9726]

What i find most interesting about this case is how much the court goes back and forth on what test they use. Furthermore justice holmes agreed with this not being a 1st amenment violation but that same year in Abrams v united states he dissented against the majority. He continued to dissent in cases such as gitlow.

[@nahtatroll]

If you disagree with this court case you should probably hate Lincoln, considering he threw people in jail for speaking out against the war. Personally I’m pro-Lincoln and pro court in this case

[@cyrusthegreat7472]

Well said

[@kingstarscream3807]

I admire Lincoln, but nobody said he was perfect.

[@rainb5987]

The correct term is whether the state has compelling interest to regulate such speech: compelling state interest must pass two test: 1. It is narrowly-tailored to achieve it. It means it is necessary rather than preference or discretion. The government has the burden to prove that it is necessary. 2. Least restrictive means - it should be least burdenign regulation. If it is not least restrictive way, then the statute should fall.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I don’t know if I agree with this case, I don’t agree that free speech that causes people to be skeptical of the government it’s not protected by the first amendment. I would say ultimately I lean on the side of disagree with this case.

[@iammrbeat]

I'm right there with you

[@souviendra]

the famous Holmes quotation doesn’t even make sense to me in its original context

[@jamesthecreator4263]

I wanna see Mr. Beat talk about Hermesmann v. Seyer sometime, it is important to know!

[@-Maxi.exe03]

I've got a question that's been bothering me since yesterday. Say you're born a natural citizen of the US. As an adult you renounce your citizenship and move to another country. Later you decide to move back to the US and apply to become a citizen again. Citizenship is granted to you. Could or couldn't you then run for President ? Of course you'd have to wait 14 years but my question is really about the status of your citizenship. Would your citizenship be treated as a continuation of that which you had from the time of your birth until you renounced it or would you be treated like any other foreigner who became a citizen later in life ?

[@Dr.Clittenheimer]

I love these, but often they end up being a bummer

[@generalaigullletes5830]

As a Socialist, I see this case as a clear violation of people's rights. Even if it were wartime, this was only a threat to the American *government.* Protesting against war and being drafted to fight in a war isn't hurting anybody or anything *except the war effort itself.* If it were in a different case, where this put human lives directly under *danger* or the inaction to save human lives, then I would think this would be more justified. But U.S. soldiers not fighting in the war simply harms the war effort, it might risk lives or not, and could not risk lives if it shortens the war itself. I personally think that the U.S's justification for war was extremely poor with Germany, although generally I am happy that the Entente won over the Central Powers. It'd also be great to hear your personal opinion on this, Mr. Beat!

[@Compucles]

Human lives, specifically the American soldiers, *were* in danger by not being able to get as many reinforcements at the front a they otherwise would without those pamphlets convincing people to illegally dodge the draft. Harming the war effort obviously causes more casualties on your side and extends the war!

[@jamescogswell9297]

Tbh I can’t really disagree that much with the socialists argument, sure the conscription may be for a good cause but the state is forcing you to risk your life against your will. Definitely seems like conscription is quasi-slavery, at least. State-sanctioned slavery in an emergency situation if you will.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah they definitely had good points

[@Alec0124]

Yeah idk, seems conservative from my point of view to protect freedom of speech. I agree that people should be able to speak out against policy they don't agree with... like the draft. If you want to put in specific scenarios, like making it illegal to shout Fire when no fire is present, that's fine. Don't tell me that we're not allowed to speak though because the government wouldn't like it. Next thing you know, you're silencing your political opponents. Edit: I think Lincoln did something similar to hold the country together. So I very well may be wrong, but that's how I see it still.

[@Compucles]

Sure, you can make that argument, but as long as it does remain legal, you shouldn't be able to go beyond just arguing to actually telling people to violate it without legal consequences.

[@soultacer2723]

Hey Mr. Beat, I suggest you do Cooper v. Aaron (1958) This case ties into Brown v. Board of Education Holding: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts. Also, I loved this video, like all your other ones!

[@marsgal42]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has two escape clauses (the preamble and the Notwithstanding Clause) that give governments the ability to do whatever they want in situations they deem sufficiently serious. The last couple of years have generated many cases that are working their way through the courts.

[@iammrbeat]

That can be a slippery slope oof

[@papajohn3599]

Mr. Beat, you should do a video analyzing if SCOTUS should be reformed or not, and if so, what it could improve on.

[@Zdude78]

This is exactly what I learned in Federal Government today!

[@repete6200]

I think too many outside circumstances affected the judgement of the case considering the Wilson Administration’s efforts to censor opponents and the Red Scare going on at the time.

[@aircobra1337]

Mr. Beat, I'm going to suggest 2 Supreme Court cases: United States v. Microsoft, in which Microsoft was accused of running a monopoly in the PC market, and Epic Games v. Apple, in which Apple (and Google) removed Fortnite from their app stores, because Epic Games violated their rules AND THE LAW.

[@WaskiSquirrel]

In 1917, activist Kate O'hare gave a speech in my town that got put into jail under the same laws.

[@FirebirdPrince]

"Clear and present danger" oh you mean sending them to a war we truly dont have to be in to face said clear and present danger?

[@Compucles]

Yeah, so they can keep overall American casualties down and help us to win the war faster. While you are correct that we truly didn't have to join WWI, that became irrelevant after we did indeed join the war.

[@robert18productions]

Due to the draft, Americans are forced to become servants to a nation, this means all the strict regulations and dangerous of the armed forces is forced upon a person who had very little choice in the conscription. So, why should US citizens not protest? Should US citizens not protest and express their speech against a law they see as unjustified? Americans did not vote for this war, they had no choice. According to this decision, Americans had no choice but to sit ideally by as they get sent to die or are crippled physically and/or psychologically.

[@SylviaRustyFae]

As a communist myself, i ofc hate the results of this case and see it as a classic example of the government restricting our clear rights whenever it goes against their plans. Brandenburg v Ohio def gave a far better doctrine to when to limit speech. Tho even then its still overly restrictive. Esp when it comes to the freedom of speech of youths.

[@iammrbeat]

Yeah, I'm glad Brandenburg overrode this case

[@SylviaRustyFae]

@@iammrbeat Imagine how diff the govt wud probs treat most protestors if not for Brandenburg v Ohio...