Yes you can. That’s a misrepresentation the left likes to cite but is totally false.
You are banned from inciting a panic. That’s it.
The word fire is not banned or restricted. But an action that causes harm to others is banned/illegal. If there is a fire, by all means shout it.
Much like harming another with a firearm is illegal, unless it’s a justifiable usage. And that’s not considered a restriction on the 2nd.
But banning the “fire” itself would be an infringement on the 1st, just like banning types of firearms would be an infringement on the second.
Congratulations. Your point proves the opposite of what you think it does.
They should all be very, very afraid, who knows, there may be a couple of dozen of them in a crowd of thousands on Monday.
Just like leftwing extremists like ANTIFA and OWS, rightwing extremists will attempt to use legitimate right wing protests to promote their own interests.
We’re always told however that when ANTIFA and similar groups use leftwing protests to promote their cause, it’s just a few nuts taking advantage of the situation but if 3 out of every thousand protesters at a rightwing function look or act like White Nationalist, KKK, etc the whole of the right wing protesting is tarred and feathered with the same broad brush.
Just look back to Charlottesville. A few hundred Neo Nazi/Whit supremacists show up at a protest against taking down statues along with thousands of others and everyone of them is labeled as part of the WN/WS movement.
Sort of. Yes the lower court can rule on Constitutionality, but they do not have the last word. Until the Fat Lady sings, the question remains open, and since the SCOUS only hears a small number of appeals, there are more questions then answers.
It is noteworthy, that the lower Court in the Heller case ruled that the 2nd Amendment did not apply in D.C. because they are not a State. How whacked would that be Constitutionally if the SCOTUS had not heard the appeal?
