Pete Santilli is much too stupid to know that he is very stupid.

[Stuart G]

Pete Santilli ,the right winger who broadcast that Obama should be executed, is much too stupid to know that he is...
......Very Stupid...

....Santilli is absolutely sure that there will be no consequences to what he said. Will there be? Will Santilli lose his job?
be arrested, be tried for his actions, go to prison?..He is sure that he can say what he wants to say.......

....There is a rule that I heard about a long time ago......"You cannot yell .."..Fire.." in a crowded movie theater.
That one restricts the Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees..."Freedom of Speech."..

...The courts have ruled that over and over. Santilli is so sure that he can get away with it, that he said this over
the air and there is a copy of him saying it. Evidence for the charges that Santilli was sure that would never come.
What do you think? Maybe I am wrong, and maybe I am right on this....Again, What do you think?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

1. When have the courts ruled over and over that you can't tell fire in a theater?

[inthewind21]

2. They

Haven't.

[onenote]

3. His "job" is that he's a podcaster -- not a broadcaster -- so is he going to fire himself?

And, no, the courts have not ruled "over and over" that you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

He's stupid, but given that the publicity his getting over his statements will undoubtedly increase subscriptions to his YouTube channel -- from which he earned only $341 the past 30 days -- he may not be as stupid as he appears.

And his statement doesn't come close to meeting the standard for incitement.

[ZonkerHarris]

7. podcasts require distribution. if the distributors like Apple etc decide he's spreading hate speech

or other violations of their TOS they can ban him from their platforms.
Then his distribution options would be very limited
he could still get his self-owned show out there, and maybe even sell ads on it, but his potential for listeners and success would be severely restricted.

[onenote]

9. His potential for listeners and success already seems limited

His YouTube channel gave him $341 in revenue in the past 30 days.

And I'll be shocked if he finds himself banned from whatever platform he currently uses.

[ZonkerHarris]

10. the bad news is that to make $341 in a month on Youtube you must get hundreds of thousands

of views.
I did a parody video there many years ago that got 750,000 views and made me about $300

[Jim__]

4. And he looks so intelligent.

[Stuart G]

5. I was totally wrong on this. I found this on the internet. I will give a link shortly

At least I admit that I was/am wrong on this one. I am sorry for this, & I apologize... Link below:

Here is the link...below:
https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/#:~:text=On%20Tuesday%2C%20Supreme%20Court%20Justice,crowded%20theater%22%20is%20unprotected%20speech.&text=Though%20it%20is%20a%20popular,fire%22%20in%20a%20crowded%20theatre.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The erroneous idea comes from the 1919 case Schenk v. United States. The case concerned whether distributing anti-draft pamphlets could lead to a conviction under the Espionage Act—and had nothing to do with fires or theaters.

In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." However, this idea was introduced as an analogy, meant to illustrate that, as Trevor Timm wrote in The Atlantic in 2012, "the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority." The phrase, though an oft-repeated axiom in debates about the First Amendment, is simply not the law of the land now, nor has it ever been—something made all the more apparent when Schenk v. United States was largely overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

"Anyone who says 'you can't shout fire! in a crowded theatre' is showing that they don't know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff wrote in 2021. "This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It's repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations."

[Silent3]

11. The literal act of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater (presuming there is no real fire)...

…is a limitation of free speech.

It’s just some of the things some people falsely believe are analogous which are the problem.

I’m pretty sure death threats and incitement of violence are NOT protected speech. It only gets tricky AFAIK when you use squirrelly less-than-literal language, then people can get away with it.

[Hortensis]

6. :) One afternoon years ago, long before tRumpism, I watched a group of Texans,

including an elected official, holding a meeting to plot violent insurrection ("secession" ) against the U.S. on a CSPAN segment they'd reserved. It seemingly wasn't their first meeting, and this general planning session hit the point in passing that their initial uprising would require killing TX authorities, police, etc.

At the end, they finished off their time slot with brief chitchat about what they were all off to next (mundane, nontreasonous activities), and...the end.

I'm sure I wasn't the only one shaking her head in amusement and some amazement.

[LastDemocratInSC]

12. Wasn't he involved in the Malheur takeover with the Bundy clan?