[ExI] intolerant minds, a different flavor

Jeff Davis jrd1415 at gmail.com
Sun May 3 21:25:07 UTC 2009


Thanks for the context, John.  Puts "fire in a crowded theater", EW
Holmes, and the supreme court in a whole new light.  Like Scalia's
action-under-color-of-authority to stop the Florida recount in 2000.
Another silly notion -- judicial integrity -- laid to rest.

I've given up on the US.  The experiment is over.  The patient walks
about in denial, as the end looms.  But not to worry, the past is
prologue.  Life goes on, and the best of American values will live on
-- somewhere else -- even as the hegemonic beast withers and dies from
their repudiation.

Best, Jeff Davis

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:40 AM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <painlord2k at libero.it> Wrote:
> It was coined by Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in his Schenck v.
> United States decision. It involved prosecuting a man who wrote against the
> draft during World War 1. This is what Justice Holmes wrote in his decision
> to put the man in prison:
> "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
> falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
> And this is what Justice Holmes thought would cause a panic and justified
> the imprisonment of Mr. Schenck the author:
> "Do not submit to intimidation, assert your rights. If you do not assert and
> support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is
> the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to
> retain. To draw this country into the horrors of the present war in Europe,
> to force the youth of our land into the shambles and bloody trenches of
> war-crazy nations, would be a crime the magnitude of which defies
> description. Words could not express the condemnation such cold-blooded
> ruthlessness deserves."

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list