You're Wrong About The 1st Amendment
Рет қаралды 824,904
Жыл бұрын⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
I'm sorry you're wrong about the 1st Amendment 🥗 Use code LEGALEAGLE50 to get 50% OFF at Factor legaleagle.link/factor
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
@LegalEagle Жыл бұрын
⚖ What else do think the 1st Amendment says? 🥗 Get delicious, healthy meals from Factor! legaleagle.link/factor
@nathanielgreer2764 Жыл бұрын
I think the First Amendment says that I am free to be an asshole and that my employer is free to say “Hey, you’re fired for being an asshole”.
@ViableGibbon Жыл бұрын
Please Do A JFK 1991 FILM REVIEW on it's LAW ACCURACY PLEASE 🙏 🙏 🙏 ?
@nathanielgreer2764 Жыл бұрын
@@ViableGibbon In the movie JFK Kevin Costner’s character is based on a real New Orleans prosecutor named James Garrison. He was branded one of the most corrupt prosecutors in the country and intentionally convicted and imprisoned many innocent people. He was finally voted out of office by Harry Connick Jr. Dad.
@albertwatkins7050 Жыл бұрын
So can you yell bomb 💣 on a crowded plane ✈️ yes it’s worth a rewatch to see Ben stiller in meet the parents plane scene 😂
@ymeynot0405 Жыл бұрын
Thank you, I haven't thought about a lot of those things since my 1st amendment class in college.
@troyevitt2437 Жыл бұрын
But can you yell, "Movie!!!" in a crowded firehouse?
@valritz1489 Жыл бұрын
Yelling "Movie!" is fine, but God help you if you yell "Chores!"
@UncleJrueForTue Жыл бұрын
@@valritz1489 Minimum sentence is 5,000 years in jail.
@TheMouseMasterYT Жыл бұрын
Can I yell "crowd" in a housed fire movie?
@UncleJrueForTue Жыл бұрын
@@TheMouseMasterYT You can yell "House!" in a fired crowd.
@findingliospugolini8979 Жыл бұрын
@@UncleJrueForTue but what if they’re shooting a movie?
@Oilbleak5453 Жыл бұрын
This video reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." - Molly Ivins
@internetguy7319 Жыл бұрын
Both because the constitution was written like shit, we need a new one
@spiderzvow1 Жыл бұрын
@@internetguy7319 more its interpreted poorly by shit people. but I get what u mean, sadly the people that would change it are the exact people u don't want doing so.
@MJW238 Жыл бұрын
@@internetguy7319 Yeah, I’d rather someone wrap themselves in neither.
@lestermarshall6501 Жыл бұрын
I prefer someone who wraps themselves in the flag before they burn it.
@danang5 Жыл бұрын
@@internetguy7319well you dont need to burn it,just rewrite it so the point still stand
@AmateurSpecialist Жыл бұрын
One of the best features of free speech is that it's easier to tell which people you don't want to associate with based on what they're saying.
@tbotalpha8133 11 ай бұрын
Ironically, it's often the people explicitly citing their right to free speech.
@KangarooKommando 11 ай бұрын
@@tbotalpha8133to paraphrase something Hbomberguy once said; when you stop trying to provide a valid defence to an argument and are instead arguing for your right to say it, things have gone terribly wrong
@tbotalpha8133 11 ай бұрын
@@KangarooKommando I heard it phrased as: "If the only way you can defend your position is by pointing out that it's not strictly illegal, then it's a bad position."
@tonybarrett8543 11 ай бұрын
@tbotalpha8133 That's a silly argument, there's no such thing as strictly legal, it's illegal or not illegal. More importantly that perspective asserts that anything which is presently illegal should not morally be argued in favor of. That would mean the position of abolitionist was wrong, even when they ensured slaves remained free who escaped on technicalities and tenuous law.
@scottmatheson3346 11 ай бұрын
that's easy for me, i don't want to associate with anybody. except legal eagle.
@romanr9883 11 ай бұрын
"Free speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently" - Rosa Luxemburg
@tropezando Жыл бұрын
"You can't desecrate a flag" "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" Guess nobody's going to come see my one-act play, Star-Spangled Inferno.
@rsr789 Жыл бұрын
🤣
@jenkem4464 Жыл бұрын
Also what future us will refer to election day 2024 if *Rump or Desantis win.
@mattp570 Жыл бұрын
A+ comment. Bravo!
@lina9535 Жыл бұрын
If you have snacks I'll come watch 😂
@dissonanceparadiddle Жыл бұрын
ironically it's SUPPOSED to be illegal to make merch of the American flag correct me if I'm wrong.
@U-Flame Жыл бұрын
I had always assumed that whenever people said "you can't yell fire in a theater" they specifically meant when you know there isn't one and wanted to intentionally cause a panic. Not that it's just outright forbidden in all circumstances.
@niedas3426 Жыл бұрын
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's what most people mean, using it as a metaphor. I'm not sure the premise of this video is actually even real lol.
@falkorornothing261 Жыл бұрын
It is what everyone means. Plus with the addition of getting kicked out. It doesn't matter what you yell the theater has the right to kick you out. And most people agree this is a acceptable infringement on the 1st amendment. It's not a public space. That being said, I'm going to yell "fire" everytime a movie has a fire in it.
@Xeno426 Жыл бұрын
Sure, but over time that extra context knowledge can get lost. For instance, "My country, right or wrong" has lost people's knowledge of the rest of the quote, "if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” It wasn't meant to be a statement of "I stand behind my country regardless of what it does", but a promise to work at improving the country and acknowledging when it does wrong.
@asheronwindspear552 Жыл бұрын
@@falkorornothing261 only if you ham it up like Frank from Hotel Transylvania.
@jconrace Жыл бұрын
Yeah, for real that was the stupidest thing I've heard Legal Eagle say. I think people understand that example means that conduct that causes immediate danger and harm can be regulated even if the conduct is speech. I'm preparing for a future of "um actually" legal takes in response to what has always been a straightforward example of how the consequences of speech can be regulated.
@GrinannBarrett Жыл бұрын
As a child, my mother said YELL FIRE if I needed attention or help from perceived danger. Explaining later, people will hear FIRE more than help help, which is used at all times including tickling! 🤔 Smart Lady
@vaishanthjv2519 Жыл бұрын
but they wouldn't help you, they will just run for their lives
@kangsate3459 Жыл бұрын
In my country just scream maling(thief) and ppl will come And if is it really a thief ppl will certainly become thugs and making that thief almost going to hospital until police come
@LordDomielOfElysium Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I was taught to yell “fire” if I was being sexually assaulted or kidnapped.
@stebsis Жыл бұрын
@@vaishanthjv2519 That's why you should yell FREE PIZZA instead
@phoenixfire8226 Жыл бұрын
@@kangsate3459 good. i piss on thieves.
@XxbobshanenxX Жыл бұрын
I've always assumed the "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" was just another way of saying "don't incite a false panic". Obviously you'd be within your rights to yell fire if there was an actual fire, but I always thought it was talking about someone trying to 'prank' the theater-goers by yelling 'fire' when there is no fire. Like yelling 'bomb' in an airport or on an airplane when there isn't one.
@SupaKoopaTroopa64 Жыл бұрын
I always thought it had to do with "stealing" the movie-going experience from people who payed for tickets. Making people evacuate seemed like more of an annoyance than an actual crime. I also thought it could have something to do with wasting firefighter resources if someone calls 911.
@kl8062 Жыл бұрын
Please don't give the TikTokers any ideas for new "pranks." I can already see it now: "The 'fire in a theater' challenge is going viral on social media, but is it stupid, wrong, dangerous, and protected by the Constitution? Experts weigh in after the break."
@SugarandSarcasm Жыл бұрын
@@kl8062 it may be protected by the Constitution, but being crushed to death by people fleeing because they yelled fire is not. Always consequences to actions, and it’s sad people just don’t seem to get that.
@wrensmith8323 11 ай бұрын
So it I should not say to loudly on a plane "I have a bong, who want's to get high?"
@RicardoSantos-oz3uj 11 ай бұрын
What is penalized is the deception, aka fraud. Fraud always causes people to act in a matter they wouldn't otherwise act. In the case of the people of the theater leaving. In the case of the firefighters, moving personnel, In the case of the theater, having to issue a refund. etc. Speech is not the crime. FRAUD is the crime. Speech is just the vehicle for the fraud.
@angelitabecerra Жыл бұрын
I always took "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" as a metaphor for inciting panic for malicious reasons. Aka, trying to cause harm via inciting panic. Crowd crushes are a thing which definitely lead to injury and death. I never took it that you couldn't yell "FIRE" in a theater ever.
@aquelegabriel Жыл бұрын
@@deanjustdean7818 if that law was ever used honestly, fox news would go bankrupt in a week.
@MonkeyJedi99 Жыл бұрын
I'd rather have someone yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater than someone actually HAVE a fire in an overcrowded night club in Rhode Island...
@magister343 Жыл бұрын
It was specifically a metaphor for publishing pamphlets arguing against World War I encouraging men to resist the draft. The danger here was that the US government would not be able to send enough men to die in one of the dumbest wars in history, one which we had absolutely no business fighting,
@zerotwoisreal Жыл бұрын
if you're scared by words, you're ridiculous. If someone warns of danger, I need to see the so-called "danger" myself and make a conclusion as to whether that "danger" warrants me leaving my seat, which I paid for, to a movie which is still ongoing, if I am still enjoying it. If the mention of a single word leads to people getting trampled to death, they deserve it for being senseless morons who only rely on what others say rather than their own judgements. Maybe it's harsh, but I find the image of hundreds of people getting killed because of some guy's falsities to be hilarious.
@aquelegabriel Жыл бұрын
@@zerotwoisreal ok, counter point: you can be killed ON YOUR SEAT by other people being scared. Like, they can try to go over your seat (you know, trying to leave as fast as possible), throwing you to the ground in the process, and then other people run over your body, killing you. Done, a "smart person" died because someone made people believe they were in danger and they panicked. Plus, you know that the fire alarm is basically just "someone saw fire and pushed the alarm button", right? By your definition of "being smart" every person on the building shouldn't leave until they either saw the fire or another evidence of fire THEMSELVES. And that's not a smart way to react if the building is on fire. The problem is not that people are "dumb" and believe there's fire. The problem is that people panic. What's your next argument?
@Petsinwinter2 Жыл бұрын
I just assumed everyone knew "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was a figure of speech for intentionally and falsely inciting panic.
@rosesleeps Жыл бұрын
Exactly. I understood it as a turn of phrase and not literal.
@n484l3iehugtil Жыл бұрын
The same conclusion would apply, I figure.
@QuantumHistorian Жыл бұрын
Pretty sure they do. But you can't spin out youtube content by saying _"Hey, you know that figure of speech we all use? Turns out it's true as a figure of speech, but not literally."_
@bbbb98765 Жыл бұрын
Exactly. Usually people use that example without referring to 1st amendment, to illustrate that knowingly reckless speech that leads to harm would not be without potential legal consequences
@itheuserfirst3186 Жыл бұрын
They don't. I guarantee you that if polled, most Americans would say it's illegal. Most people don't know the law, or the Constitution. You guys are just miffed that he mocked a political ally. The woman was advocating for restricting Constitutionally protected speech based on her own moral framework; which should be offensive enough. Instead, let's just focus on what people really think about yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
@timothybell9348 Жыл бұрын
The best part about the "you can't desecrate the flag" people is that they turn a blind eye to merchandizing the [censored] out of it by putting it on disposables, undergarments, and such... which actually is considered to be "disrespectful to the flag" according to 4 U.S. Code § 8.
@RayBoone-pv4wx 10 ай бұрын
I would argue that those aren't "flags" as defined in the US Flag Code. What's on disposables, undergarments, etc. are just representations of the flag--not actual U.S. flags. Depends how "flag" is defined in the Code, though.
@alexmason5521 6 ай бұрын
@@RayBoone-pv4wxthe flag code is pretty ambiguous. It’s also not law.
@SpaceTrashCrash 2 ай бұрын
Our natural First and Fourth Amendment rights supercede all illegal, Unconstitutional codes and laws. The People's Constitutional Amendments listing our natural rights stand above all else. That code is illegal, because it violates The People's First and Fourth Amendments.
@chrisingram940 Жыл бұрын
I worked in movie theatres for a long time. While not illegal, it isn't wise to talk about fire in a crowded movie theatre, so we had a code we would use, instead of saying "there's a fire in the theatre" we were told to say "there's a kitty in the theatre" so as not to frighten the patrons. An occasional "kitty" in the popcorn popper, no big deal - smother it, throw out the blackened popcorn, move on. Then one time the motor that raised the curtain (old, fancy showplace) seized up and caught fire. One of the new ushers noticed the smoke and investigated, then came running to the boss: "Mr. Manchan - there's a kitty in the theatre behind the screen!" Boss doesn't react -- I guess the code didn't connect or something, so the usher tries again: "There's a kitty behind the screen, and it's on fire!" We grabbed a fire extinguisher and put out the fire while the previews were running, pulled the plug on the motor, and let it ride until closing. Good times!
@melissawickersham9912 Жыл бұрын
If I spotted a real fire in a theater, I would immediately tell a theater employee about it so that the employee could do something about the fire. I wouldn’t want to scream and panic because panicking doesn’t solve the problem at hand.
@petergroves3153 Күн бұрын
In the Royal Albert Hall, the code for fire was Mr Sands, raising the possibility of them showing Manuel de Falla's famous Ritual Mr Sands Dance.
@youtubeSuckssNow Жыл бұрын
_PLEASE_ do this for every amendment! Ok well just to add, lump the boring ones/straightforward ones into a video But the contentious ones could definitely use it. Some of the 10s and 20s come to mind.
@nathanielgreer2764 Жыл бұрын
Even the one about not having to house soldiers?
@TheEDFLegacy Жыл бұрын
@@nathanielgreer2764 _Especially_ the one about not having to house soldiers.
@lloydbonifide Жыл бұрын
Jesus! That's a lot of videos!!
@DukeOfJam7591 Жыл бұрын
Nah some a really boring. Just videos for the tastier amendments, like 2nd and 5th
@CdnTrader1 Жыл бұрын
That was my thought as well. I would love a 2A video explaining how the “Originalists” and the “Textualists” just act the “well regulated militia” clause does not exist.
@zachklopfleisch8501 Жыл бұрын
I think the context for Holmes' quote was the Italian Hall Disaster, not the Iroquois or another theater fire. On Christmas Eve, 1913, striking copper mine workers had pooled their resources to make sure the community's children a good meal and a Christmas present after suffering shortages due to their parents striking for most of the past year. While 400 people were packed into the second floor at the top of a steep set of stairs, a strike buster shouted "fire" then blocked the exit doors. The ensuing crush killed 73 people, 59 of which were children. I think this was Holmes' context, and I'm pretty sure that setting up a trap to murder dozens of children on Christmas Eve in order to break a strike isn't protected speech. But I think the context has been lost or ignored, and the popular use of the phrase truly misses the point.
@megamandrn001 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for not forgetting America's long, ugly, violent strikebreaking past.
@MrMarket1987 Жыл бұрын
Yikes... In principle, that one's just plain worse in every conceivable way to any fire induced accidents.
@GrumpyOldFart2 Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I never assumed that it had anything to do with 1A. I didn’t know the historical context (thank you!), but always assumed that it had something to do with using some type of inflammatory speech (no pun intended!) deliberately to produce a negative (harmful/chaotic/injurious) reaction. I think most jurisdictions have some kind of law against “incitement”.
@vectorwolf Жыл бұрын
I was going to come into the comments to mention this, but you tapped it well enough. I'm also sure this incident is what he was referencing.
@CaseyShontz Жыл бұрын
I didn’t know about this incident, but I know crush events can be disastrous. More people need to see this!
@Girbicfluzz Жыл бұрын
The phrase "settled law that won't be overturned anytime soon" doesn't quite carry the same weight it used to.
@wildfire9280 Жыл бұрын
Not even Brown v. Board or other “landmark” civil rights litigation and legislation have stood the test of time unscathed.
@ElSantoLuchador Жыл бұрын
That's what aspiring supreme court justices say when they're trying to get through confirmation hearings.
@joshualavender Жыл бұрын
Ugh, too true!
@Playaflydre 11 ай бұрын
Facts
@Tantalus010 10 ай бұрын
Was just about to post basically the same thing. Apparently, we need to start defining degrees of "settled law," because settled doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean anymore.
@DecodedDodo 11 ай бұрын
I've seen so many people online that have no clue on how the first amendment works and how they can sue a company like twitter for limiting hate speech in their platform. This video is very informative and even pointed people to this video on what free speech protects and what it doesnt.
@NoriMori1992 Жыл бұрын
For some reason "I spent 10,000 years in jail" got me more than any other part of the story 😂
@HylianFox3 Жыл бұрын
"At last, after 10,000 years I'm finally free!!!"
@coeusdarksoul2855 Жыл бұрын
*Illidan Stormrage has entered the chat.*
@MaryAnnNytowl Жыл бұрын
Yeah, but the young black man that got busted with a joint is still in there. 🙄😒
@Ghost-Raccoon Жыл бұрын
I'm not from the US but I always thought that "shouting fire" is exactly about inciting a panic without there being a fire. Not literally about just shouting "fire".
@falconJB Жыл бұрын
As an American I can confirm that this is how we use it to.
@kassiogomes8498 10 ай бұрын
Yeah. He is reaching when we tried to make an argument out of this.
@vikkimcdonough6153 Жыл бұрын
9:10 - After the events of the past year or so, I'd hesitate to call _anything_ "settled law that won't be overturned anytime soon".
@BrendanBeckett Жыл бұрын
I'm pretty sure most people are assuming the intentional false panic scenario when they use this phrase.
@Matrim42 Жыл бұрын
I mean, I don’t know anyone who thinks you literally can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre under any circumstances. It’s always just shorthand for “you can’t deliberately incite a panic”
@Pumbear Жыл бұрын
In my experience the phrase is used in most discussions regarding free/hate speech and they always use as an example for when censorship is acceptable. This video is honestly the first time I've ever come across someone saying it means to not incite a panic.
@Dadofer1970 Жыл бұрын
@@Pumbear More generally, it is shorthand for not being able to use speech that is intended to cause or incite physical harm (not that much unlike the fighting words doctrine). As an example, I think it isn't that bad. The legal history of the example was cool to hear, but that doesn't make it a bad example for laypersons. The phrase gets used by people who want to ban hate speech because many of them think that hate speech falls in that category. However, as Legal Eagle eloquently points out, it does not. When confronted with someone using the fire in a theater example as an argument for banning hate speech, I usually point out that if someone actually thinks there is a fire then it is absolutely protected by the Constitution.
@cacoethes1366 Жыл бұрын
@@Evangelionism thanks for that completely irrelevant comment. I’m sorry that you lost an argument with someone and can’t let it go but randomly bringing it up and being passive aggressive about it just makes you look like a sore loser.
@lukeado Жыл бұрын
@@Evangelionism I lament that you made this rambling, unnecessary post.
@rgallitan Жыл бұрын
@@Evangelionism Aren't drag shows.... free speech?
@jamesodell3064 Жыл бұрын
In Canada a man was arrested for flipping the bird at someone he did not like and was charged with making a threat. The court threw out the case stating, "flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter-enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian." Got to love that judge for his good judgment.
@sr2291 Жыл бұрын
Lol. I would have loved to have been sitting in that courtroom.
@guyjperson Жыл бұрын
Well, one of the most famous moments in Canadian history was Pierre Trudeau flipping the Bird to a heckler. So it's on the scoreboard
@hunterg24 Жыл бұрын
He technically wasn't arrested for giving the middle finger. He was arrested for death threats and harassment. However, it came out in the trial that no death threats were made and that the worst that happened was some curse words as well as the use of the middle finger. Obviously cussing out someone isn't a crime and the judge rightly ruled that the we all have the right to give someone the finger. So let us all celebrate by giving the finger.
@martinusmagneson Жыл бұрын
Depending on where you are, and where you are from, in Norway, "hæstkuk" and "trekuk" (rude variant of horse-penis and tree-penis) is acceptable to call a police officer. The rude variant of Vagina-face is not accepted however.
@Gakulon Жыл бұрын
@@martinusmagneson You'd think cops could handle some unkind words considering the jobs that they voluntarily entered in to
@erinelizabethmsw5137 Жыл бұрын
Hey LE and viewers! Another reason people were nervous in theaters was because of the Italian Hall tragedy in Calumet, MI. In 1913 someone falsely yelled fire! and 73 people died. They never did find out who was responsible.
@Dhumm81 10 ай бұрын
We might not know which hired thug(s) caused that massacre of striking workers and their families, but it's no mystery which robber barons arranged it.
@momom6197 4 ай бұрын
Well, it's certainly a mystery to me. I have no idea who you're insinuating accusations towards. @@Dhumm81
@vicentemorua4517 Жыл бұрын
I teach Constitutional Law in our high school. Every case you cited is taught in my class. The students are always shook when they learn these myths in my class. Thank you for clarifying these issues.
@Veritas-invenitur Жыл бұрын
Good on you for teaching your students about these cases. My HS teacher did the same and it changed my view of the world. I found myself appreciating this nation more.
@jolenejoleeene Жыл бұрын
Seems like you're a much more engaging teacher than my college constitutional law professor. That class was a slow, painful death.
@andiward7068 Жыл бұрын
Now you play this and grab a bathroom break? Idk if you're allowed to leave the room with students in it anymore. I was lucky enough to have my schools be safe places and not shooting galleries.
@erikk77 Жыл бұрын
Public HS or private?
@andiward7068 Жыл бұрын
@erikk77 please be public, please be public, please be public! We plebs need everyone as educated as we can make them and it seems to be more lacking in the public arena.
@UnreasonableOpinions Жыл бұрын
The Venn diagram of ‘people who are desperate to criminalise flag code violations’ and ‘people whose entire decor and aesthetic is flag code violations’ is a circle.
@glennpearson9348 Жыл бұрын
Truer words were never written.
@Miltonhsr47 Жыл бұрын
I once corrected my uncle on flag code because he’s one of those people, and his response was because he had been in the military and I never had been, I wasn’t allowed to correct him.
@glennpearson9348 Жыл бұрын
@@Miltonhsr47 Proving, yet again, that it is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled.
@ScottyKirk1 Жыл бұрын
Kamala LOVES Venn diagrams! 😉😍
@spartanx9293 Жыл бұрын
How is that the case flag print is not flag code violations as those things were never United States flags in the first place
@larrylapalm7481 Жыл бұрын
In Calumet,Michigan. Someone yelled fire at a Christmas party in 1913. There was no fire and 74 people mostly children trampled each other and died trying to escape the Hall. Someone yelled fire on purpose, and there was no other way out. Whoever yelled fire was never solved. The crime remains unsolved. Today it’s called the Italian hall disaster.
@blueline15 4 ай бұрын
I’ve been to the site of the incident and looked at the memorial. It’s a haunting and sobering place to visit.
@MagentaRV Жыл бұрын
This is great! The only thing I'd caution people about in regards to hate speech is that while the speech itself is protected, it's a thin line where you can still be arrested for it under the fighting words doctrine that allows government to limit speech when it is likely to incite immediate violence or retaliation by the recipients of the words.
@deohenge1865 11 ай бұрын
I think that alone would make for a really interesting video, given the increasingly retributive response from groups who don't want any language they find "hateful" used. I'm sure it varies wildly by state. It makes you wonder where the limits really are with respect to the law. Like, if I walk into a small store in the middle of an argument and yell "I will beat the shit out of the next person who says the word 'lemons'," is someone guilty of inciting retaliation if they just yell 'lemons!' back at me? What if I said the next person who speaks at all? Or does the incite have to directly attack something covered under a protected class?
@alessapisiconeri Жыл бұрын
This reminds me of a funny story Oscar Wilde told about bravery: During a play a panic went up in the audience about a fire and people pushed and shoved to get to the one doorway. An actor told every one to sit back down, saying all they had to fear was their own reaction. Once everyone sat back down, the actor jumped off the stage and ran out screaming through the freed-up doorway.
@Reverend_Salem Жыл бұрын
i saw Phantom of the opera when it came to my city. afterwards, some of the stage hands, had a cool thing with a small amount of people that was talking about things that had happened during the show at other theaters. during the show, there were some pyrotechnics, and the next show during a scene change there was apparently some settled smoke (i.e. some smoke from the previous show that was kicked up during the scene change) some people thought there was a fire and the entire theater calmly and quietly evacuated the theater, and the cast didnt realise what had happened untill the lights went down for the next scene change. iirc this happened in either Canada or a Midwestern state like Minnesota
@yuchoob Жыл бұрын
My grandfather once told me, "People think the most important thing in life is to watch your wallet. It's not. It's to watch your health." So there I was watching my health, and someone stole my wallet! It was my grandfather.
@NickersonGeneral Жыл бұрын
Im confused. I thought the unspoken implication behind the fire in a crowded theater thing was "you can't knowingly incite a riot without a good reason". Are there really people out these who literally think it means "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EVER"?
@yoshin1666 Жыл бұрын
I doubt it tbh, I mean probably at least one person but the vast majority of people understand it in the metaphorical sense I'm not sure why anyone would reasonably come to the conclusion Kathy Hochul in particular meant it literally, like she has a law degree and worked as a lawyer ???
@zenaku666 Жыл бұрын
@@yoshin1666 I agree, I think that whole tirade was just a bad joke with a bad premise.
@Razmoudah Жыл бұрын
@@zenaku666 Sadly, I've met several people who would take it literally. In fact, I've met many people who would believe all of the myths mentioned in this video.
@WindsorMason Жыл бұрын
People keep saying/hearing statements like that without the implication and it takes on a life of its own. Like when actual quotes get simplified and/then misattributed. The original gets forgotten and only the new version is proliferated. Look at other sayings like: one bad apple spoils the whole bunch; and how it has turned into: it's just one bad apple, nothing to worry about. Totally goes against the actual saying's meaning, but people shortened it and implied the rest until it was forgotten and replaced and now here we are.
@WaltRBuck Жыл бұрын
Are there? Yes, sadly. Some people believe everything they're told.
@Alex-zi1nb Жыл бұрын
man, i would be so much happier about supreme court rulings if cops actually listened to them
@TylerMcVeigh1 Жыл бұрын
I think the best way to sum up the First Amendment is you can say whatever you want according the court of law but don't be shocked when the court of public opinion finds you guilty. Just because you can say something doesn't mean it doesn't carry any consequences.
@rationalbushcraft Жыл бұрын
The Italian Hall Disaster that happened here in Michigan was a likely company man who falsely yelled fire during a workers union christmas party for copper miners children. 73 people died. That was a perfect example of a crime of causing panic.
@terryjwood Жыл бұрын
And the perpetrator was never punished for what he did nor were the people who paid him to do it.
@stephenfiler3204 Жыл бұрын
Thats not the kind of crime that happens on accident. It was definitely the companies punishing unions.
@HurricaneDDragon Жыл бұрын
As a Californian, I don’t know if I can stay subscribed to Legal Eagle after learning of his vicious criminal past.
@wayneurquhart7192 Жыл бұрын
He's done his time, give him a second chance.
@nonamevoidoblivion9695 Жыл бұрын
He's served his 10,000 year sentence; he has indeed done his time.
@Sienisota Жыл бұрын
He has clearly been rehabilitated to become a productive member of our society. Proving that focusing on rehabilitation might be a viable option. He became a lawyer, even after such a serious crime and time.
@wayneurquhart7192 Жыл бұрын
@@Sienisota Are you sure he won't just shuffle off to Mexico with his friend Andy Dufrey?
@williamedge5130 Жыл бұрын
Normally I am a complete prison abolitionist. BUT LOCK THIS MAN UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!1!
@540derick Жыл бұрын
You should check out Louis Rossmans saga against NYC, in summary he had a lien placed on him in 2016 (without his knowledge as all court documents were sent to an incorrect address in maine) and caused him to be denied for business loans and other lines of credit. Not only this but the judgement was for 1500 and wasn't even an amount he actually owed, it was a clerical error. He was only able to find out about it after his banker did a search on his business for warrants and found the lien a week or so ago. Not only this but New York state was receiving mail BACK from the incorrect address as (return to sender) stating incorrect address yet they still failed to correct this. Understandably so, he is considering suing as this had radically changed the course of his life.
@Leggir Жыл бұрын
I love that you know where the line in the sand is and can walk along it, whereas other channels just steer clear.
@ghosthunter0950 Жыл бұрын
Kathy Hochul also took the right to repair bill that passed overwhelmingly and let corporations edit it as they wishes and signed the exact edit, word for word they provided her. They added a bunch of loopholes for themselves. She let corporations write the law. Just so you know where her interests are at.
@DaftFader Жыл бұрын
If that was the Washington one, that just got overturned (the bad faith additions)! :)
@JasonBoyce Жыл бұрын
she also put one of the most anti-abortion Republicans in the state in charge of New York's judicial system. she is garbage
@temp_unknown Жыл бұрын
A politician having corporations in their pockets???? I simply cannot believe this sir. Unheard of.
@apenguininthemist855 Жыл бұрын
A Capitalist did a Capitalism in a Capitalist country? How shocking!
@user-wy1et9dk9w Жыл бұрын
@@apenguininthemist855 you can be a capitalist until you being one effects the other capitalists bottom line.
@RavenFilms Жыл бұрын
I wonder if anyone took the “can’t yell fire in a theater” thing to mean they literally couldn’t. I know that’s how it’s casually said, but I always through it was obvious that it was shortened down and clearly meant not yelling fire for no reason and causing chaos. Was that actually not obvious to most people? Were the majority of people out there thinking they would go to jail if there was a fire and yelled it? Seriously?
@stevesether Жыл бұрын
No, that's just Devin being a pedantic lawyer in a youtube video, and exaggerating peoples opinions for dramatic effect. I've no doubt there's a few nuts that took the phrase literally, but just about every other comment in this video is an attempt to question Devins literal stance.
@Pumbear Жыл бұрын
Yes ofcourse people do as the phrase is rather obtuse. The issue is with purposefully inciting a panic, but the phrase is only used in regards to free speech issues.
@brianching3565 Жыл бұрын
Hahah yeah I can't believe he went down that path and ignored the most common understanding of that phrase. Good call m8
@OtokodateSwordsman Жыл бұрын
Participate in a 2nd amendment debate and wait for people to use the fire in a crowded theater to emphasize "rights aren't absolute" without any awareness of irony to what they're saying.
@joefordney3278 Жыл бұрын
My dad used to say if they need help to yell fire because it would actually grab people's attention
@skycrawler1918 Жыл бұрын
Great video! Being reminded and learning about just how powerful our rights are is something that doesn't happen as often as it should. Thank you and please keep these videos coming!
@luckydueces5873 Жыл бұрын
Ever since I found this channel I’ve been addicted to learning new things about law I didn’t know. Thanks, as always, Legal Eagle, for your entertaining and informative videos.
@ucantSQ Жыл бұрын
The Espionage Act is one of the best example of government overreach ever. Has it ever been used to prosecute a foreign agent or citizen colluding with foreign agents? Please do a video on the Espionage Act!
@josephschubert6561 Жыл бұрын
I would also like to hear more on this. As stated in the video, the government doesn't seem to like people getting out of the draft.
@akosbarati2239 Жыл бұрын
Read up on the Doll Lady, who worked for Japan, the prostitution ring the Navy busted in San Diego in 1943 that was based out of Mexico and financed by Japan, there was an American held in Belleview in New York who spied for Germany. As for governmental overreach, oh boy. Operation Waterback deported US citizens, breaking the legal obligation Roosevelt gave them, every tribal contract ever, and mly favorite, abusing the 13th Amendment's prisoner exclusion to continue to enslave people for existing while black or brown and get presidential pardoned, and still try to run Maricopa County again.
@Videogamer-555 Ай бұрын
When used as intended it's a good law. When used to support government actions that it never was intended to support it's a government overreach.
@Dominus_Potatus Жыл бұрын
A prime example of "Good Lawyer can tell what you can do."
@kevinbealer6320 Жыл бұрын
I always thought the "hate speech is not free speech" wasn't saying that hate speech is illegal, but rather that the cost of hate speech is paid by someone else. Like their safety, their liberties, their general well-being. I'm pretty sure that's what the tweet was getting at too.
@Herkan97 Жыл бұрын
They could just say that instead of an inaccurate, presumably-trying-to-be-cool one-liner.
@Gruncival Жыл бұрын
I think you're right that Devin wasn't catching this as a turn of phrase, but overall I think the point he was trying to make is generally true-that people are making the claim that hate speech in the US is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In the open-source computer software world, there is a small culture of stating "free gratis" and "free libre" in order to distinguish between whether a statement refers to a program's cost versus whether it refers to the person's freedom to use the software however they wish.
@Mr_Wallet Жыл бұрын
@@Herkan97 Yes, this is the issue with most catchy political slogans. It just starts pedantic arguments tangential to what the slogan was invented for.
@thumper84 Жыл бұрын
No they mean the first amendment doesn't protect speech they disagree with which is all hate speech is, something democratic party disagrees with
@quintrankid8045 11 ай бұрын
@@Mr_Wallet I think life would be easier if people would say what they mean instead of trying for catchy spin. Kudos to Legal Eagel for calling out Gov. Hochul.
@definitlynotbenlente7671 11 ай бұрын
If someone calls for the harm of others it should not be free speach
@PyroGam3s 10 ай бұрын
It won't be, even though they have free speech, there are consequences given certain situations.
@cibriis1710 8 ай бұрын
This, we delineate all the time. You can touch someone's shoulder but you can't punch them in the face.
@barnabusdoyle4930 Жыл бұрын
I always find it funny how many police officers, HR directors and politicians tell people things about the law that aren’t true such as when HR tells you in a meeting at work that you are not allowed to discuss your salary with other employees, a corporate policy that violates labor laws.
@dsproductions19 Жыл бұрын
Police generally won't say stuff like that, especially regarding 1st amendment. Only politicians do that, usually democrats who want to censor speech.
@steffenjensen422 Жыл бұрын
These people have a vested interest in pitting workers against each other instead of having them band together
@Aftershk Жыл бұрын
The most ironic part of the flag desecration laws is that the vast majority of those who cry about flag burning or flag desecration are the exact same people who consistently violate the U.S. Flag Code by wearing the flag as clothing, displaying the flag on bedding or napkins or other things that get filthy and/or thrown away, desecrating the flag themselves with blue lines and Punisher logos, and flying flags on their pickup trucks, SUVs, or homes that are frayed, torn, or otherwise being displayed in poor repair.
@bukketkid2567 Жыл бұрын
Not only that, their flag covered clothing and stuff are all made in china.
@SubPablum Жыл бұрын
Or putting a blue line on it. 4 U.S. Code § 8 - R (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
@MiraBoo Жыл бұрын
I was taught that when a flag cannot be repaired or cleaned, the respectable thing to do is burn it instead of toss it. This is from patriotic (in the Captain America sense, not the Punisher sense) military members. I was so confused because I always heard that burning the flag was considered desecration. I find the contradictory dichotomy of proper flag protocols to be a bit perplexing. As a result, I’ve opted to just not buy any USA flags or paraphernalia. I figured it was better to be safe than sorry. The star-spangled-banner has never really appealed to my aesthetic anyway.
@alexwyatt2911 Жыл бұрын
@@MiraBoo You’re correct. When an American flag is in disrepair or poor condition, the flag is to be burned. The VFW will do take care of it (for free) if you’re uncomfortable doing it.
@PyroGam3s 10 ай бұрын
@@MiraBoo I can attest (at least in my own branch of service) that we have been taught the ceremonial burning of the flag bearing it's retirement is correct and the preferred method of disposal. However, my first experience with this happened during my association with the Boy Scouts of America, in which we were taught the same thing. According to legaleagle however, the video appears to claim there is no legal precedent (such as ceremonious burning) and it's fine to just do it, protected even. Unfortunately, the line between what is strictly legal and publicly accepted seems to be very blurry and that's probably where a lot confusion takes place.
@chillbro1010 11 ай бұрын
People who know better: "The government cannot stop you from yelling fire in a crowded theater but IF YOU DO you could be held liable in a civil case if there is more than X amount of actual damages due to medical bills from injured people"
@mariacatherine229 8 ай бұрын
I just discovered your videos and love them. I am learning so much about the law and having fun at the same time. Quite an accomplishment!
@MonocleTopHats Жыл бұрын
OBJECTION: I think when people say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", they aren't saying that there is a magic spell that makes you go to jail if you say the word fire. I think what they're saying is "you can't (maliciously, falsely) yell fire in a crowded theatre (which would create a dangerous situation)", which you basically agree is correct. Rare weird strawman from this channel, you're usually more rhetorically honest.
@neoqwerty Жыл бұрын
I think he's actually giving a mathematician's answer, rather than creating a strawman (I've seen idiots argue that you can get arrested for yelling fire in a crowded place, more than a dozen separate times, so it's a position that actually exists): it's technically correct (you can't get arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre) but also useless (it's entered shorthand as an idiom that means doing something to cause a panic, you could "modernize" it to "shouting "this guy has a gun!!!" in a school right on the tail of a bunch of high-coverage school shootings").
@CassidyCope Жыл бұрын
The second point is also very weird, because the perspective he gives at 10:10 is a very American attitude. He admits that other countries restrict hate speech... and then he pretends it's impossible to do fairly? Maybe I've missed something, but I don't think we're exactly living in a dictatorship up here in Canada, nor is it an Orwellian dystopia across the pond in Germany. I can't even take seriously his implication that hate speech laws (or any laws) are interpreted by politicians. Judges aren't even elected on any level in most countries.
@MonocleTopHats Жыл бұрын
@@neoqwerty but like... You CAN get arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre if that's false and causes a stampede and kills a bunch of people. It's just a true thing that can happen, which highlights the limits of the protections of free speech. Like, the idea that people who misinterpret free speech get across is "I can never be arrested for simply saying words" and the crowded theatre example is saying "here's a way you can be arrested for saying words". You would be arrested for involuntary manslaughter or something, and you couldn't say "but first amendment" as a defense.
@wrlrdqueek Жыл бұрын
I never thought that was supposed to be literal, I just thought it meant you aren't allowed to purposely and falsely endanger others.
@callievaughn9955 Жыл бұрын
same here
@cavemanfreak Жыл бұрын
Yeah, this seems like a rare bad take from Devin. It seems obvious that the implication is that you can't do it to purposely create panic.
@itsLantik Жыл бұрын
@@cavemanfreak But theres no law saying you can't purposefully create panic, just not purposefully incite lawless activity. That's not saying it would be allowed or anything, just that there's no law against it. I think Devin's right here.
@jakedewey3686 Жыл бұрын
@@cavemanfreak not just that, the next section he mentions a quote where someone says "hate speech isn't free speech," but it's clear the author wasn't talking about the legal concept of "free speech." They were saying hate speech incurs a social cost, not that hate speech is illegal.
@jakedewey3686 Жыл бұрын
@@itsLantik there are many laws that say that. Granted, none of them are the first amendment.
@t0mn8r35 Жыл бұрын
This was, as usual with your videos, very entertaining and informative.
@benjamin_lincoln Жыл бұрын
This was so fun to watch and learn from, one of my favorite videos I've seen
@pencildragon1961 Жыл бұрын
I once screamed "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse. All I got was weird looks.
@pencildragon1961 Жыл бұрын
@@OpalBLeigh to be fair, I didn't follow through with the movie. I was bluffing. ;-)
@cutebabyseal621 Жыл бұрын
That's because you were supposed to shout "THEATER!"
@thisbigsmallworld Жыл бұрын
That "I spent 10,000 years in Jail" line got me good! 😅😅
@TetsuDeinonychus Жыл бұрын
After 10,000 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!
@Rejukem Жыл бұрын
@@TetsuDeinonychus Alpha, Legal Eagle's escaped! Recruit a litigation team with attitude!
@Dadofer1970 Жыл бұрын
I have a difficult to shake image of Devin yelling "Fire!, fire!, fire!" at the screen a la Beavis and Butthead.
@Angelgabrielwyatt Жыл бұрын
Bro just admitted being a time traveler
@ethanor Жыл бұрын
@@Rejukem "Oh no! Not copyright lawyers!"
@mrjohnklake Жыл бұрын
I had to explain this basic concept to my teenage son. I would however yell THEATER in a crowded firehouse. 😉😂
@willbrashear Жыл бұрын
Yes, this is a great video. As a military soldier, I had people spit on me or jump in my face trying to start a fight. I know when I was in the military I stood for free speech not just speech that I agreed with.
@TheOriginalFaxon Жыл бұрын
I'm glad youtube clarified their own stance on speech with regards to monetization, because being able to watch this video without it being constantly bleeped was fantastic :D
@andrewfriedrichs9340 Жыл бұрын
I thought the "fire in a crowded theater" specifically referred to doing it with the intent of creating chaos.
@helloman5232 Жыл бұрын
Yeah as a not american my thought the qualifying factor was "to induce panic" ie the intent was the crime not the speech
@zenaku666 Жыл бұрын
same but evidentially we are being led to believe a significant amount of people take it literally? Like I get LegalEagle is joking around, but seriously who thinks "yelling fire in a crowded theater" in that context literally means you can't ever yell the word fire in a theater?
@andriaching3735 Жыл бұрын
As a non American that first story boggled me too. People in the modern age still can't determine if the language used was meant to be contextual instead of literal? And then I remember Twitter...
@macmcleod1188 Жыл бұрын
@zenaku666 the statement is a summary. The full opinion probably spans thousands of words over many pages of paper. The funny thing is is that protesting the draft is the kind of political speech that I think the 1st Amendment was intended to protect in the first place.
@J-manli Жыл бұрын
@@andriaching3735 A good portion of America holds the belief that anything that isn't expressly illegal is moral and the reverse is true where if something is immoral it's most likely illegal. So since the false fire call is immoral, many believe it's automatically illegal. I hope that provides some context?
@samcalder6946 Жыл бұрын
Valid reason #47: you're getting your child's attention and his first name is "Fire". When our son was born, I was giving considerable thought to naming him "Fire". Why? It's arguably humanity's most significant invention; every little boy is really a pyromaniac at heart; and the jokes practically write themselves... * I could invite the whole family to the Baptism of Fire * "Would little Timmy like to come around and play with Fire?" * His first kindergarten drawing could be entitled "The Line of Fire" * (As above) I would now have a legitimate excuse to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre * If I'm doing the Dad thing throwing him into the air, I could be catching Fire * His belligerent sibling could be a Fire fighter * "stop hitting yourself" is now known as fighting Fire with Fire * Babysitters would henceforth be referred to as Fire marshalls * "...and in local news, earlier today Fire tore through the crockery department at Macy's leaving a trail of destruction..." * Meals would henceforth be referred to as "adding fuel to the Fire" * If he's an extrovert he could be "friendly Fire" * If he grows up to be a judge, it could be trial by Fire * He could set vacation email autoreplies that just say "Fire away". Unless he was climbing Everest, then it's "Fire on the mountain" * If he's a stoner, "where there's smoke there's Fire" * If he's a miner, Fire in the hole * If he works in sanitation, dumpster Fire * Getting married would involve giving someone else the ring of Fire * His OnlyFans could be called "Great Balls of Fire" etc. etc. Unfortunately the missus was approaching full dilation and not in a jocular mood during this particular brainwave, so it was kyboshed pretty quick. I had to settle for giving him the middle name "Danger" instead.
@thelittleredhairedgirlfrom6527 Жыл бұрын
This is hilarious, best wishes to you and your family.
@kaylynn4750 Жыл бұрын
The baptism of Fire one really got me for some reason. Hilarious 😂
@graham.crackers 11 ай бұрын
I did my whole History Day project on Tinker v. Des Moines, so it made me strangely happy to see a quote from the case
@KaiHenningsen Жыл бұрын
This brings up an interesting point. There are several fundamental differences in how German and US law handle these things. In no particular order: - first and most importantly, there are a number of rules that in the US restrict government, but in Germany restrict everyone. - We generally don't call it "hate speech".The probably most similar concept is _Volksverhetzung_ _Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement to hatred" (used also in the official English translation of the German Criminal Code),[1][2] "incitement of popular hatred", "incitement of the masses", or "instigation of the people", is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population _*_and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them,_*_ including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.[1][2][3]_ - Apropos of that, just like the first amendment calls out a number of important rights, so does the German constitution. But it does have one right the first amendment lacks: the right to human dignity. This has far-reaching consequences. It restricts what drill sergeants or the cops may do, but also leads to insults not being legal - they're in the same class as libel and slander, all of which are considered to violate that rule. Like in the US, public figures and officials have to accept lesser protections.
@Gruncival Жыл бұрын
I have heard of some of that, but it's all very interesting taken together. My question is whether that last matter is generally accepted by most of the public in Germany, or if it is hotly contested? I can imagine everyone is okay with their own human dignity being unassailable, but are there groups out there angry that they must play some game of words in order to speak against their opponents without "insulting" them as interpreted by the law? Edit: I read your statement more closely and realize you said "segments of the population". Are these segments any sort of category, including political faction, or is it generally restricted to identity categories (such as race, sex, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
@xhelloselm Жыл бұрын
Then again, in Germany it’s forbidden to deny the holocaust or say some other socially unacceptable things. Granted, nothing of value is lost there, but it’s a serious restriction of free speech that is not based on actual incitement of violence.
@cstacy Жыл бұрын
@@xhelloselm Those Holocaust denier laws highlight the fundamental difference in speech freedom between our countries. Germany just does not believe in free speech. The U.S. is all about free speech, and quite specifically for unpopular or offensive speech. And the US can not have laws against hurting people's feelings by merely saying things. This is because we do not believe it is possible to trust the government to decide what those limits are. (However, there can be civil actions between individuals for inflicting emotional distress under some situations.)
@grn1 Жыл бұрын
@@cstacy You hit on the most critical thing here, we CAN NOT trust the government to restrict OUR rights in a way that is beneficial to US. If the government can decide what hate speech is then they WILL label anyone who speaks out against them as a hate group. If the government can decide who is mentally unstable and shouldn't be allowed to wield a firearm then they WILL label anyone who disagrees with them as mentally unstable (happens all the time).
@wildfire9280 Жыл бұрын
@@cstacy “Government” is composed of our elected representatives and executives. Not monarchs. If we knowingly vote in people like that, that’s on the voters for choosing it.
@overthinkersanonymous1035 Жыл бұрын
I've always loved this quote from The American President... "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
@quintrankid8045 11 ай бұрын
That guy advocating for what I disagree with is just an opportunity for me to tell other people why he's wrong and I'm right.
@laceflower_ Жыл бұрын
"There's no reasonable solution to this problem that is only particularly severe in America"
@ryanjones2297 11 ай бұрын
what problem? Free speech? That is a feature not a bug.
@sqrt7956 11 ай бұрын
lol yup
@HATER47 Жыл бұрын
When I read the title, I honestly thought this video was going to be about the cereal companies going to court against the FDA saying they're violating their first amendment rights by saying cereal companies are no longer allowed to put the word "healthy" on their products if they don't follow a new set of guidelines on what you can and can't put healthy on. But still, this has been very informative! Another awesome video!
@wildfire9280 Жыл бұрын
It seems the false advertising law from the 1960s has stayed on the books for quite some time so I would assume the FDA is safe in that regard.
@Videogamer-555 Ай бұрын
Never heard about that FDA ruling. When did that happen?
@HATER47 Ай бұрын
@Videogamer-555 if I googled the right thing, the FDA guidelines were updated in March 14, 2023 regarding cereals, which made the companies stop putting "healthy" on their cereals
@londonjolly9174 Жыл бұрын
"One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric" goes hard
@ImNotACatLawyerButIPlayOneOnTV Жыл бұрын
I never knew Legal Eagle was a 10,000 year old vampire who hid his face tats with makeup 🤯
@tinneranne Жыл бұрын
Glad someone else realized the most important takeaway from this video. 😂
@IKMcGwee Жыл бұрын
Also a time traveler, because the law he broke was made in 1989.
@Nico-hs4rt Жыл бұрын
Also he is AI
@LimeyLassen Жыл бұрын
finally some lore
@LuisSierra42 Жыл бұрын
The movie a man from earth was based on Legal Eagle
@AeonStar1 Жыл бұрын
I'm now wondering if there's any case law regarding whether parents have the right to punish their children's speech? Obviously, parents [i]will[/i] do so regardless of whether we allow it - but it seems to me that if the state enforces the authority of parents over their children (which it does), that puts parental authority under the aegis of the First Amendment. Of course, the plain fact is that even if it makes it to court in the first place, courts are pretty unlikely to accept the proposition that parents are as limited as the government in exercising coercive authority.
@Gilgamex 8 ай бұрын
This is a pivotal moment. You were the guy we were all seeing when we were younger (currently 33), the up and newcomer of an older generation but someone firmly in that 35+ age group. That guy would never include the stuff you do in his videos if he had youtube, culturally you hit the inflection point, where now my age group (generally) is now becoming the lawyers, doctors, and beyond increasingly, year after year. The fact you lace your videos with all sorts of random humorous bits, straight out of my childhood nostalgia moments and inclusion of extremely relevant meme humor and beyond, its like a renaissance. The 35+ lawyer of yesteryear would never dream of including any of that, culturally it couldnt be conceived, now we rise, for we are legion c:
@edwardreyes2419 Жыл бұрын
The biggest reason movie theaters of that era caught on fire so easily was because the film was made of cellulose nitrate which was extremely flammable. Passing through the inside of a hot projector would at times catch on fire.
@neoqwerty Жыл бұрын
It also applied to theatres, not just movie ones. (candle props were VERY common). Also to both, IIRC the documentary I read about regulatory safeties for theatres and movie theatres, there was also a resurgence of it when electricity got common and lightbulbs caused much of it.
@JustRaiHere_2023 Жыл бұрын
In most cases, people get fixated on only one portion of a statement instead of the intention of the whole. People love to skip the qualifier in the statement because it allows them to manipulate it to their choosing.
@thekwjiboo Жыл бұрын
This reminds me of something about a well-regulated militia, but I just can't quite put my finger on it. Man, it's right on the tip of my tongue...
@GSBarlev Жыл бұрын
How many can you name off the top of your head? - ...spoils the bunch - ...but satisfaction brought it back - ...of the covenant... of the womb - ...master of none Of course, @Craig Johnson above has the winner.
@williameldridge9382 Жыл бұрын
@@thekwjiboo yes, and people conveniently seem to forget what a militia is. It's not the military, I'll tell ya that.
@ohauss Жыл бұрын
@@williameldridge9382 It's also not a bunch of weekend warriors who think all it takes to stop an MBT is a sixgun and a US flag. There's a reason the National Guards were created and there's a reason why the US actually does have a standing military despite the founders' problems - and that's not the least that over time, John Doe plumber wasn't willing to put in the time and effort needed to have a functioning militia of otherwise civilians.Have a chat with some people from Switzerland. They do still have a citizens' army. But that means that able-bodied people need to take substantial time out of their professional lives in regular intervals so as to keep up to specs being able to operate in an effective military force capable of defending the country.
@WindsorMason Жыл бұрын
@@GSBarlev just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and then you don't need to finish the rest of the sayings or think about what they are saying... It's easy!
@hansoak3664 10 ай бұрын
That segway into the Factor ad was pure gold! 😂
@Articulate99 Жыл бұрын
Always interesting, thanks.
@mickcollins1921 Жыл бұрын
I assume most people connected the ‘yelling fire’ bit with intentionally creating a violent or dangerous situation.
@migmit Жыл бұрын
Most people with a functioning brain, at least.
@lilpenguin092 Жыл бұрын
You know what they say about people who assume too much right
@VoltisArt Жыл бұрын
I feel quite safe assuming a massive proportion of arguments have no basis in logic.
@charleshawkins8481 Жыл бұрын
Definitely. I really think when most people say, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," they are are imagining exactly the set of circumstances given in the video for when it is in fact illegal; there is no fire and your intent is to create a dangerous panic. I don't think most people actually think you can't yell fire if there is a fire, as part of the performance, etc., they're just using "you can't yell fire" as a shorthand.
@kbowman772 Жыл бұрын
@@migmit Yeah, but you know how the law gets when it comes to functioning brains. It has to be really specific for those without them...such as politicians.
@m.mulder8864 Жыл бұрын
I am a felon and the event did inspire me to become a lawyer but I learned the bar won't pass me because of my felony
@MsSgent Жыл бұрын
Depends on the bar and the felony in question. CA has some felony lawyers, and probably some other states as well.
@dankdungeon5104 Жыл бұрын
I am a fella
@m.mulder8864 Жыл бұрын
@@MsSgent it's actually encouraging to hear. My reading suggested that there's nothing outright saying I can't become a lawyer but that the bar does a sort of morality check which makes the odds pretty heavily stacked against me.
@kaimarmalade9660 Жыл бұрын
The way you transition into adverts is pure mastery.
@freddoflintstono9321 Жыл бұрын
Best segway into the sponsorship part ever 😂. Illuminating, thanks.
@QuantumHistorian Жыл бұрын
7:43 But isn't that exactly what people are insinuating when they say "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre?" I doubt anyone thinks there's a blanket ban on that word in that building, but use it as an idiom to refer to deliberately causing a panic that will likely lead to considerable harm.
@Xelseragoth Жыл бұрын
Yeah, one heck of a strawman had to be built for this video to work...
@chitlitlah Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I was kind of confused by the first one. He calls it a myth, but at the end just lists a few exceptions when you can yell fire even though there isn't a fire, situations that are outside of the implied scenario.
@scifisyko Жыл бұрын
I dunno, I feel like “won’t be overturned any time soon” is a weird take given the current SCOTUS’ obvious disdain for precedence and jurisprudence.
@akosbarati2239 Жыл бұрын
The 1970s were a magical moment where the Southern Strategy heavily relied on Evangelicals want to pretend that they were better than godless commie scum and they made certain compromises to feel better, and Newt Gingrich's revolution under Clinton started to disantle them like clockwork. That Biden and Hillary were willing to support certain parts of it shows the Democrats were very aware what percentage of their voters didn't liked being called a racist publicly. Based on my European experiences people who voted Obama then Trump only voted for Obama for jobs and zero of his policies. Now that Russia and China are no longer open to interpretation if they're friend or foe many can pretend it's the 1950s again.
@cutebabyseal621 Жыл бұрын
IMO a conservative court is waaaaaay less likely to overturn protections on speech than a liberal court.
@neilkurzman4907 Жыл бұрын
@@cutebabyseal621 So you’re not keeping up with their rulings ? They chose not to take a case where the police arrested somebody put them in jail before realizing that it was constitutionally protected speech. But the Supreme Court said he had no remedy. You should focus on your guys instead of pointing at the other guys and ignoring your guys
@annwilliams6438 Жыл бұрын
Oh, you mean like the previous guy packing the Supreme Court and inciting the Jan 6th riots?
@crystalsoulslayer Жыл бұрын
If they overturn First Amendment protections, there will rapidly be issues with a ton of statements made by the political right, not just the left. If they make it illegal to burn the U. S. flag because it's inciting rebellion against the government, it would _definitely_ be illegal to fly the Confederate flag. The law cuts both ways.
@jolo3118 Жыл бұрын
Omg I was literally arguing with my bf about this a couple of weeks ago. And trying to prove it to him led us down a damn rabbit hole with a bunch of nitwits not understanding the actual amendment.
@jacobshirley3457 11 ай бұрын
The confusing part is that the amendment's words are the first half; the other half is the Supreme Court's interpretation. So, the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment, is not the same as some random person's interpretation.
@turoskensei13 Жыл бұрын
Could you make a video about fighting words? I think it warrants a deeper dive to explain to others.
@bournechupacabra Жыл бұрын
This was an informative video but I think that anyone using the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" is implicitly saying that you can't falsely yell "fire" with the intention of creating panic and causing harm. That seems pretty obvious to me, since spelling it out exactly takes a lot more words
@JLF201 Жыл бұрын
Same. It never occurred to me that someone might think talking about fire would be illegal or saying the name of a movie that contains the word "fire" would be illegal or that a comedian couldn't say fire or anything other than intentionally creating panic and harm while knowing there is no need to panic.
@lilpenguin092 Жыл бұрын
If there's anything I learned after watching LE's videos, it's that implicit ideas need to be specifically expressed
@VoltisArt Жыл бұрын
You folks are thinking about this logically. Assume at least half of all arguments have no basis in logic.
@stevencahn4019 Жыл бұрын
Nice wild generalzation and speculation, Karen. Where did you learn critical reasoning, PragerU or Gov Hochul's press conferences?
@stevencahn4019 Жыл бұрын
@@VoltisArt ONLY half?
@alliu6562 Жыл бұрын
I think the biggest misconception about free speech is that a LOT of people (mostly conservatives, influencers, and conservative influencers tbh) view free speech as a defense from public criticism. Which it is not. Free speech specifically relates to the government, and doesn’t prevent individuals from saying “this take is colder than the Antarctic, L + ratio + no bitches”. Edit: people seem to have missed my point, but I guess that’s just free speech at work! Another win for free speech, I guess.
@carolyntalbot947 Жыл бұрын
"Be wary of the bad take, for one may be socially condemned to get no b*tches with no recourse via the First Amendment." --Thomas Emerson
@leathewolf Жыл бұрын
Precisely. They view speech as not really free unless they're guaranteed a positive reception, and they think that a negative one is truly trampling on their speech rights.
@a.g.foster8222 Жыл бұрын
@@leathewolf That applies to both sides left and right
@REgamesplayer Жыл бұрын
Very vague take solely dependent on a person in question or how you perceive his views.
@friendcomputer5276 Жыл бұрын
Getting hounded by a screeching mob of antifa terrorists isn't criticism. Neither is people trying to get you fired because they don't like what you said, doxxing or all the dozens of other things the cult of woke (and unfortunatly an increasing number of others) tends to do to people that dare to disagree with their orthodoxy.
@Xyzzzz138 Жыл бұрын
The pics had me rolling lmfao. Love this nerd.
@ronniedeen3651 Жыл бұрын
How has this channel been on so long and not done a “gets lawyered” for an old episode of Night Court
@jyujohnson2360 Жыл бұрын
Once again I am asking you to cover the student loan forgiveness issue that's in the hands of the Supreme Court! As a student I really want to know your thoughts on what is likely to happen.
@stevieinselby Жыл бұрын
When there's an active shooter, shouting "Fire!" might be taken as an instruction to the shooter 😬
@extraemail4961 Жыл бұрын
More specifically, "Fire at will!"
@LadyOnikara Жыл бұрын
@@extraemail4961 In that situation, anyone named Will might want to quickly change their name.
@shadowprince4482 Жыл бұрын
There's a 99% chance it'd get overturned. Still, yelling "active shooter" is a much better way to get people to safety. I'm not going to barricade myself in a room if there's a fire. Educational fact, many bathrooms have special locks on the bottom of the door. They're pretty bullet resistant and they are found in almost all government building bathrooms in the USA.
@Thorstendeal Жыл бұрын
I’ve never been to The Americas, but I have lived all over Scandinavia and The UK, my understanding of free speech has pretty much always been that you CAN say whatever you like to whom ever you wish but although you can say whatever you like, people who hear what you say can respond as they see fit (verbally not physically). You are free to say what you like but you are NOT free from the consequences of your speech
@rileymichael2694 Жыл бұрын
very true & yet another point too many americans do not get. freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences
@TitaniumDragon Жыл бұрын
@@rileymichael2694 Now substitute "religion" for "speech" and see how that parses. The reality is that freedom of speech pretty much does mean freedom from consequences. If practicing your religion (or not practicing a religion) leads to you not being able to have a job or do business in most places, you don't have freedom of religion. This is why we have civil rights laws that restrict people from bigotry. If people keep acting the way they do about freedom of speech, we may need to pass a law about that as well.
@LeScratch89 Жыл бұрын
@@TitaniumDragon Free speech means free from consequences? Lie to people at your job and see how well that goes for ya, champ. Especially if it's your boss you're lying to. You have the right to lie, and other people have the right to not associate with you as a consequence - yes, that includes employment and housing and all manner of other things, as long as it isn't an arm of government. Speech is not religion, no matter how much you want it to be.
@TitaniumDragon Жыл бұрын
@@LeScratch89 True statements and statements of opinion are covered by the first amendment. Lies are only covered insofar as it is necessary for the first two. Many forms of lying - libel, slander, false statements about products, false medical statements or legal advice, etc. - are potentially legally actionable. Or outright illegal. If people aren't actually free to speak their mind in the public square without being totally ruined financially and socially, do you actually have freedom of speech? That's quite dubious. And there is no distinction made between speech and religion in the first amendment - they both are noted as rights that cannot be violated or infringed upon. Indeed, what is the difference? Religious practices are themselves nothing more than a form of speech/expression. The only reason why discrimination by religion is illegal is because of Congressional laws - private entities were, before the 1960s, allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.
@SimonNissen94 Жыл бұрын
@@LeScratch89 Lying isn't a very good example mate, i don't if you know but all goverments more or less lies to it's people, alot of employers lie to their workers, parents lie to their kids, Free Speech most definetly means everyone has right to their speech, how is this so hard to understand? if you don't like a persons speech just don't listen to them
@kaziiqbal7257 Жыл бұрын
I remember my high school had a uniform (even though we’re public) and even though they taught us Tinker v. Des Moines, I was too much of a square to even think about not wearing the uniform.
@callievaughn9955 Жыл бұрын
honestly, I always thought the "don't shout fire in a theater" meant using an emergency situation to cause a false panic. I compare this to the story of "the boy who cried wolf"
@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT Жыл бұрын
What a lot of people forget in the moral to the story is that there actually was a killer wolf on the prowl.
@rekcusdoo Жыл бұрын
You can shout fire in a theater. You just may civilly liable for any damages caused in the ensuing panic. But you can't be arrested just for saying it.
@joefox9875 Жыл бұрын
@@rekcusdoo This is a better explanation of the law than Legal Eagle
@stevenclark5173 Жыл бұрын
@@rekcusdoo Can you be arrested for pulling the fire alarm though?
@FEKana Жыл бұрын
@@stevenclark5173es. If you ring the fire alarm during a false alarm you could be arrested for misusing emergency services
@michaelrae9599 Жыл бұрын
I think the " hate speech isn't free speech" has more to do with the price that the victims of that speech pay.
@chrischika7026 Жыл бұрын
Doesn’t matter still trying to censor someone’s opinion
@raetavia8223 Жыл бұрын
@@chrischika7026 and? Government can censor your speech in libel slander and direct threats of violence cases, By use of a civil lawsuit in which the courts determine whether your speech is protected or not. Free speech is not absolute
@chrischika7026 Жыл бұрын
@@raetavia8223 I never said it was . Libel and slander are matters of fact . Direct threats of violence call for actions of violence . Obviously it’s not absolute just like how freedom and Liberty are not as well
@JAYHICKOCK Жыл бұрын
Really appreciate this vid. I’m always trying to find a concise way to express the near absolutism of the first amendment.
@snarkbotanya6557 Жыл бұрын
One big misuse of "freedom of speech" I see getting thrown around is people saying "I have freedom of speech, I can say what I want" as if that means "I have freedom of speech, therefore nobody can criticize me for saying something offensive." Actually, we can, because that criticism is us expressing our freedom of speech! Freedom of speech means the government can't censor you; it does not mean freedom from the social consequences of what you say.
@envysart797 Жыл бұрын
3:06 this might actually have something to do with actual incidents of fatal crowd crushes which can indeed happen over fire alarms. In the Theatre Royal disaster in 1849, a small fire broke and was extinguished - but because of the panic (and because theatres of that day were so badly designed), it caused a crowd crush that killed dozens of people. If someone had *falsely* shouted about a fire you’d have an argument for some kind of manslaughter there.
@PapaTaurean Жыл бұрын
"After 10,000 year I'm free! It's time to practice law!"
@Lobsterwithinternet Жыл бұрын
“Recruit a team of paralegals with attitude.”
@chrisschack9716 Жыл бұрын
I thought he said 10,000 hours ... works out to a bit over a year and a month.
@CreativityNull Жыл бұрын
I have slept for 10,000 years! The gavel of influential people misinterpreting the law has rudely awaken me from my long slumber! Now I must completely eviscerate them with facts and logic... Except actually using facts and logic, unlike Ben Shapiro.
@buckmoonmedia5113 Жыл бұрын
Magic wand, make my witness groooooow!
@orsolyafekete7485 Жыл бұрын
We are not prepared
@wodenbyers2793 Жыл бұрын
I've never heard of the saying 'fire in a crowded theater' lol
@christopherbui5613 Жыл бұрын
Could you do a video on your favorite books? Books to read before law school?
@wellthiswasfun Жыл бұрын
"You cowards" thank you Devin for saying exactly what I'm thinking every time i hear "let's go Brandon".
@biingyin5522 Жыл бұрын
Actually the crowd at the car race did shout F*** joe Biden. However a news reporter interviewing Brandon deliberately changed it to Let's Go Brandon even though it was clear to everyone it was the former. Let's go Brandon is a much more effective "calling cry" because it is F*** joe Biden plus highlights the media's role in twisting the truth
@sackofclams953 Жыл бұрын
It’s not meant to be a secret, they’re poking fun at the media
@earnestbrown6524 Жыл бұрын
Well the crowd behind NBC Sports reporter Kelli Stavast was not cowards about having their 1st Amendment moment.
@BrennanCh06 Жыл бұрын
Lol the whole reason for it is mocking the media and because algorithms on social media easily censor "bad" words
@badbirdkc Жыл бұрын
@@sackofclams953 Which itself is dumb. They think "the media" was trying to cover it up, but the fact is that when those guys are on a stage with earpieces on, it is really hard to hear or understand what a crowd is chanting. Plus, the driver on stage was named Brandon. As usual, Trump supporters get themselves wound up over the dumbest shit and make it their rally call.
@benjaminknudson5997 Жыл бұрын
I'd like to look at the tweet from Lou Diamond Phillips. When he says "hate speech is not free speech" , he follows it with "it comes with a cost to real lives". I thought that was kind of a clever thing to say actually. Although an individual may be free to say something, it still can hurt someone else dearly. I think his poetry got lost in legal translation.
@stevieinselby Жыл бұрын
Yes, it was very well phrased. Like "no such thing as a free lunch" doesn't literally mean that you will never get a midday meal that you don't physically have over cash for, people need to understand that their freedom can have real consequences for other people. The problem with using this line of attack is that the people who need to hear it aren't bright enough to figure it out, and wouldn't care about other people being hurt even if they did.
@gandalfthegay. Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I think applying legal terminology to everyday language is kinda wack. We all can understand what he meant by that. It's more a trying to misunderstand it than actual reasoning.
@AlienFromBeyond Жыл бұрын
Wanted to say the same thing, LDP was using expert subversion to use free in free speech as the free in free beer thanks to the follow up about cost. Between that and the near strawman examples of yelling fire in a theater that are in fact okay (as if people thought you could never ever say fire in a theater) this video is a real stinker.
@Juniper_Rose Жыл бұрын
A very important video, and it reminds me of one of my favorite XKCD Comics (or at least, the alt text); that it is the ultimate concession to say that the only thing of merit about your speech is that it is not literally illegal.
@Qveenshxt Жыл бұрын
Does anyone know the song playing in the background at the beginning? Also, I loved the intro! Very dramatic, very extra. Chef’s kiss!
Oscar's Funny World
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
WJCL News
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН
Oscar's Funny World
Рет қаралды 6 МЛН