[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response, I had a bit of the drop or would not have been so ham-handedly confrontational. Your style is in fact somewhat refreshing on this board, although 'understanding' and 'conciliation' have no room in some subject manners that you choose to engage, in my not so humble view.

Well as to the matter at hand, to use a simple and common example, yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater is free speech, yet we quite correctly frown on such speech. A dogmatic interpretation of the First Amendment would allow it, as such when reading and interpreting the First Amendment, should it not be viewed with deference to social norms? Should my neighbor be allowed to yell obscenities at 2Am at the top of his lungs because the First Amendment says that no speech shall be abridged? If pornography is viewed in a similar vein then Bork argues that it should be restricted likewise, this is not a radical view in this context. How is my interpretation of Bork's perspective or the perspective itself wrongheaded?

[/ QUOTE ]

The example of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is a bit different, and I'm afraid I don't recall all the legal points on the subject I heard once explained.

It might have something to do with the fact that it is not an act of expression, but rather an act intended solely to endanger others via the resultant panic of the crowd. I think there may be a better legal argument, though, which I simply forget. I admit that the above is not wholly satisfying, since a similar argument could be used to argue why pornography should not be protected (lack of expression of view, thought or feeling; and sole purpose to an arguably deleterious end). Maybe one of the lawyers on this forum could help out here - or maybe "pvn" could explain it [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

The following might be merely a minor quibble: it could be worth noting that the U.S. Constitution does not directly protect free speech via the First Amendment; rather, it restrains Congress by stating that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" - which technically is a bit different, as the focus is on preventing Congress from instituting any restriction. I think there might be other parts of the Constitution which could actually offer more direct protection to free speech, along with certain other unspecified or unenumerated rights; but the fog of sleep has not yet fully lifted and I have barely progressed halfway through one cup of coffee. I will hope again that others more knowledgeable in matters of law will offer their perspectives on these points.

Cheers [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] - it was a good cup of coffee, and a pleasure responding to your post.