Page 2 of 2
Re: MD stay at home defined by the Gov's assistant Ricci
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:49 am
by smdub
Rut Row wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:28 pm
SCOTUS has allowed infringement on rights for certain circumstances. The classic example is you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I suspect they would support limited restriction on free movement in a case like this.
That 1919 ruling was (partially) overturned later. Incidentally, the case actually had NOTHING to do with actually yelling fire in a theatre. It was aganst a person who was distributing papers opposing the draft (they actually used an anti-espionage act against him.) It was an overstep of SCOTUS as those exact acts are clearly protected today.
Even though 1A doesn't protect against false statements, don't you have to prove damages to have a case?
Re: MD stay at home defined by the Gov's assistant Ricci
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 9:35 am
by Rut Row
smdub wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:49 am
Rut Row wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 7:28 pm
SCOTUS has allowed infringement on rights for certain circumstances. The classic example is you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I suspect they would support limited restriction on free movement in a case like this.
That 1919 ruling was (partially) overturned later. Incidentally, the case actually had NOTHING to do with actually yelling fire in a theatre. It was aganst a person who was distributing papers opposing the draft (they actually used an anti-espionage act against him.) It was an overstep of SCOTUS as those exact acts are clearly protected today.
Even though 1A doesn't protect against false statements, don't you have to prove damages to have a case?
both good points
Re: MD stay at home defined by the Gov's assistant Ricci
Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 6:04 am
by Twist
https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavirus- ... affic-stop
A young PA woman was ticketed for "just going for a drive." Hopefully she'll get this thing tossed when traffic court resumes.