cheerup domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/keepcalmnprofit/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114The \u201cfire in a crowded theater\u201d case involved neither a fire, nor a theater, nor a crowd, and resulted in one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever reached. But the phrase fire in a crowded theater<\/em> was repeated by both vice-presidential candidates during their debate on Tuesday, demonstrating an ongoing misunderstanding of free speech.<\/p>\n Toward the end of the debate, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz, pointed out that former President Donald Trump tried to overturn\u2014first by fraud and later by force<\/a>\u2014the 2020 presidential election, which he lost. J. D. Vance, the Republican who was selected to replace former Vice President Mike Pence on the ticket precisely because he is the sort of quisling lapdog who would participate in such a scheme, retorted that Walz supported \u201cFacebook censorship.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cYou can\u2019t yell \u2018fire\u2019 in a crowded theater. That\u2019s the test. That\u2019s the Supreme Court test,\u201d Walz said.<\/p>\n \u201cTim. Fire in a crowded theater? You guys wanted to kick people off of Facebook for saying that toddlers should not wear masks,\u201d Vance replied.<\/p>\n [Read: J. D. Vance tries to rewrite history<\/a>]<\/p>\n The equivalence that Vance draws between social-media moderation and Trump trying to stage a coup is ridiculous, but revealing in terms of how conservatives have come to conceive of free speech: They believe that right-wing speech should be sacrosanct, and liberal speech officially disfavored. Walz is simply wrong about the Supreme Court standard for what kind of speech can be outlawed, but the invocation of that archaic test does illustrate how safety can become an excuse for state censorship. It just so happens that social-media moderation is not state censorship, because social media is not the government.<\/p>\n In 1919, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of socialist anti-war protesters<\/a> under the Espionage Act in Schenk v. United States<\/em>. The accused, Charles Schenk and Elizabeth Baer, had been passing out flyers urging people to resist the draft during World War I. The Court ruled unanimously in an opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that the convictions were constitutional, with Holmes writing<\/a>, \u201cThe most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.\u201d (The next time someone tries to tell you that \u201cwords are violence\u201d is something left-wing college students came up with, remind them that the U.S. Supreme Court said it first.)<\/p>\n The cultural context here is as important as the legal one. As the legal scholar Geoffrey Stone writes in Perilous Times<\/em>, the country was in the throes of the first Red Scare, and the Supreme Court was \u201cfirmly in conservative hands. The values and experiences of the justices led most of them to hold anarchists, socialists, and other \u2018radical\u2019 dissenters in contempt.\u201d As Stone notes, Schenk and Baer\u2019s pamphlets urged political support for repeal of the draft, not even unlawful obstruction of it. The justices, however, did not consider the political beliefs of those they were judging to have value, and therefore they had no problem seeing people thrown in jail for those beliefs, no matter what the First Amendment said. After all, it was wartime.<\/p>\n So there was no fire, no crowd, and no theater. What actually happened was that some people had unpopular political beliefs and the government wanted to throw them in jail, and the Supreme Court said that was fine. That also happens to be the kind of thing that Trump wants to do as president<\/a>, the kind of thing that the arch-conservative Supreme Court has decided he should have immunity for doing<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Schenk<\/em> standard, however, was repealed in Brandenburg v. Ohio<\/em><\/a> in 1969, a case involving Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader who was convicted under a state law that prohibited advocating political change through terrorism. The Supreme Court\u2014then a liberal court, something that had not existed before and has not since\u2014overturned his conviction, ruling that that government can only bar speech advocating \u201cimminent lawless action\u201d that is \u201clikely to incite or produce such action.\u201d Stone writes that the Court was trying to tie its own hands to prevent the government from acting under the spell of \u201cfear and hysteria\u201d that can be brought on by wartime. It\u2019s a much better standard than the kind that gets you imprisoned for handing out pamphlets. (Vance, a Yale Law graduate, is probably aware that Trump\u2019s speech working up a mob that went on to ransack the Capitol and try to hang Pence<\/a> could meet that much higher standard, known as the \u201cBrandenburg test<\/a>.\u201d)<\/p>\n But the fact that the government can put you in prison points to how matters of free speech are different for social-media companies. Social-media companies can\u2019t put you in prison, because they are not the government. They can ban users for not adhering to their standards, but this in itself is a form of speech: Just as the right-wing website Breitbart<\/em> does not have to publish my writing, social-media companies do not have to publish the content of users who violate their rules. Social-media moderation is not state censorship, and it should not be treated as such. Conservatives understand this when the moderation decisions land in their favor, which is why the union-busting billionaire Elon Musk\u2019s favoritism toward conservative speech and attempts to silence his critics<\/a> on the social-media platform X have not drawn the attention of the Republican majority in Congress. Nor should they\u2014he owns the place; he can do what he wants with it. The point is that conservatives fully get the distinction when they want to.<\/p>\n [Read: Did Donald Trump notice J. D. Vance\u2019s strangest answer?<\/a>]<\/p>\n Vance\u2019s implicit position is that conservatives have a state-enforced right to the use of private platforms; that the state can and should force private companies to publish speech that those companies disagree with, as long as that speech is right-wing. Such a policy really would be a form of censorship<\/a>.<\/p>\n Immediately after Trump\u2019s disastrous September debate, conservatives, including Trump himself, began calling for ABC News to lose its broadcast license<\/a> for fact-checking Trump\u2019s lies about Haitian immigrants<\/a> in Springfield, Ohio. These threats of state retaliation against media outlets\u2014or anyone who speaks out against Trump<\/a>\u2014illustrate that what conservatives mean when they talk about free speech is a legal right to use private platforms as venues for right-wing propaganda, whether or not those platforms wish to be used that way. That is a form of censorship far more authoritarian than private social-media platforms deciding they don\u2019t want to carry rants about COVID shots putting microchips in your blood that can receive signals from alien invaders.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n