1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

Page 39 of 56
  1. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    Yep. No freedom is absolute.
    Yelling fire in crowded movie theatre when there is no fire.
    Defamation.
    Human sacrifice as religious rite (or right).
     
    tapintoamerica, Jun 27, 2024
    #457
    Driftwood likes this.
  2. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    Yeah, except in this case quite a few of the things the government was trying to suppress have been proven true, or at least to have some merit.

    The government wasn't trying to stop people from yelling fire in a crowded theater. They were trying to stop them from talking about fires in theaters and what might happen if a fire broke out in the theater, while there was a smoldering garbage can belching smoke in the corner.
     
    Batman, Jun 27, 2024
    #458
  3. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Don't we assume all the opinions are written by now?
     
    DanOregon, Jun 27, 2024
    #459
  4. Justin_Rice

    Justin_Rice Well-Known Member


    How was social media "coerced"?

    Not the "if you squint your eyes and leap to conclusions" version of coercion. How were they actually coerced?
     
    Justin_Rice, Jun 27, 2024
    #460
    2muchcoffeeman likes this.
  5. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    FWIW, you CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There is no law against it. The canard only exists because it was part of an analogy used in an argument in a 1919 case (which was essentially overturned in 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio anyway).
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2024
    BTExpress, Jun 27, 2024
    #461
    maumann likes this.
  6. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Most certainly, yes. The six or seven remaining (depends on whether they issue one or two opinions for the social media cases):

    Relentless and Loper-Bright, the Chevron cases
    Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, on the statute of limitations for challenging a federal agency action
    The social media cases
    Grants Pass v. Johnson, the homelessness case
    Fischer v. United States, the Jan. 6 case
    Trump v. US, the presidential immunity case
     
    MileHigh, Jun 27, 2024
    #462
  7. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    First opinion of the day, the homelessness case out of Oregon. 6-3 along ideological lines.

    The court holds that the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" barred by the Eighth Amendment.
     
    MileHigh, Jun 28, 2024
    #463
  8. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Chevron cases are overruled.
     
    MileHigh, Jun 28, 2024
    #464
  9. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    This is great news for those of us who live in pleasant climates. Let’s take back our streets.
     
    TigerVols, Jun 28, 2024
    #465
  10. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

    LOL
     
    goalmouth, Jun 28, 2024
    #466
  11. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    Know what’s weird about the Eighth Amendment? It bars cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail but not excessive punishment.
     
    tapintoamerica, Jun 28, 2024
    #467
  12. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Hate to put a dent into my "lib cred" but I've seen the conditions people camping on public property live in, crap everywhere- to me THAT is cruel and unusual. .
     
    DanOregon, Jun 28, 2024
    #468
Page 39 of 56
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page