Shariah in a Crowded Theater

Fenster writes:

Is it OK to shout “Shariah” in a crowded theater?

Pushing that a bit on the speech side, how about “Allahu Akbar” in a crowded theater?

Or pushing it a bit in terms of delivery and venue, how about just conversing, using the term “Shariah” in a crowded store?  Such speech recently prompted an actual move to the exits in a store rather than a theater, though no one was trampled.

It is worth reading Ken White’s review of the crowded theater issue over at Popehat.  In it, he takes us through the constitutional history, in which Holmes plays a key role.  The gist of it is that Holmes changed his mind and his reasoning as regards free speech.

Holmes initially allowed for a more restrictive approach.  The cases that people fall back on to defend speech limitations (most notably three cases dealing with wartime dissent from 1919 and most notably among them Shenck v. United States) have been trumped by other cases that now form what he calls the “modern standard”. This modern standard was articulated later, in 1969, in Brandenbug v. Ohio:

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. . . . A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.

White lauds Holmes for what he argues is a change of heart and mind.  It is good that jurists can have second thoughts.  But it does raise the gnarly issue of precedent.

White argues that Holmes had to dissemble quite a bit in attempting to square his new thinking with his old.  Jurists have to do that.  White says Holmes does not do so credibly.  Holmes came out quite clearly in favor of the “modern standard” in his dissent, along with Brandeis, in Shafer v. United States.

The jury which found men guilty for publishing news items or editorials like those here in question must have supposed it to be within their province to condemn men, not merely for disloyal acts, but for a disloyal heart: provided only that the disloyal heart was evidenced by some utterance. To prosecute men for such publications reminds of the days when men were hanged for constructive treason. And, indeed, the jury may well have believed from the charge that the Espionage Act had in effect restored the crime of constructive treason. 2 To hold that such harmless additions [251 U.S. 466, 494] to or omissions from news items, and such impotent expressions of editorial opinion, as were shown here, can afford the basis even of a prosecution, will doubtless discourage criticism of the policies of the government. To hold that such publications can be suppressed as false reports, subjects to new perils the constitutional liberty of the press, already seriously curtailed in practice under powers assumed to have been conferred upon the postal authorities. Nor will this grave danger end with the passing [251 U.S. 466, 495] of the war. The constitutional right of free speech has been declared to be the same in peace and in war. In peace, too, men may differ widely as to what loyalty to our country demands; and an intolerant majority, swayed by passion or by fear, may be prone in the future, as it has often been in the past to stamp as disloyal opinions with which it disagrees. Convictions such as these, besides abridging freedom of speech, threaten freedom of thought and of belief.

To this, White remarks wryly that:

Anyone who can reconcile that with the Schenck cases is a better lawyer than I.

So we have good news and bad news here.  The good news is that the modern standard is workable and has proven durable.  The bad news is that jurists, like the general public, can be of many minds on free speech and the idea of changing one’s mind in the face of precedent is itself not without precedent.

About Fenster

Gainfully employed for thirty years, including as one of those high paid college administrators faculty complain about. Earned Ph.D. late in life and converted to the faculty side. Those damn administrators are ruining everything.
This entry was posted in Law, Politics and Economics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Shariah in a Crowded Theater

  1. agnostic says:

    To put the shift in historical perspective, the size of the foreign-born population, as a fraction of all Americans, peaked in the early 1900s. A lot of the incitement to violence came from immigrants who had nothing invested in this country’s welfare, present or future. They didn’t like living in ghettos, so they’ll just lob some bombs on Wall Street, and that’ll fix everything. Not to mention foreign Jews trying to engineer a Russian Revolution within our borders (Goldman, Berkman, sayonara).

    And remember that the early 1900s, when Schenck was issued, was the Progressive Era — purifying all sorts of disease, corruption, and dead weight that had been festering and rotting since the Gilded Age. Well, how is tolerating a bunch of foreigners agitating for Communist revolution good for America’s present and future welfare? There might not be an America if we let them get their way.

    Foreign or barely assimilated agitators cannot possibly have America’s welfare on their minds, as though it were merely a difference of opinion about where the country should go, being discussed by parties of equal rootedness in America to qualify as stewards of the nation.


  2. agnostic says:

    As immigration was shut off during the Great Compression (roughly 1910 or ’20 through 1970 or ’80), the percent of Americans who were foreign-born plummeted to a minimum level in 1970. By the time of Brandenburg, agitators urging violence were mostly founding-stock whites — or maybe Black Panther types, but still groups who have been here since the beginning. They were protesting the Vietnam War, seen as bad for America’s present and future — a debate that was of the “honest disagreement among equals” type.

    Agigators circa 1970 were not foreigners hell-bent on transforming American society into the utopian vision of their home nations. They were Americans looking out for what was best for America, whether that put them in disagreement with the Establishment or not. So, why not allow them more lee-way than we allowed the Italian immigrant bomb-lobbers of the 1920s?

    Makes sense, but the Court of 1970 couldn’t have foreseen a return to Gilded Age levels of foreign-born percent of the population. We need a return temporarily back toward Schenck, and if Donald Trump gets to nominate the Justices, we just might get there in time to prevent shariah law, the same way we averted Communist revolution circa 1920.


  3. agnostic says:

    For reference, foreign-born population from 1860 to 2010 (yellow line):


  4. Pingback: “We desperately need our own version of the First Amendment” | Uncouth Reflections

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s