It's not irrelevant if it changes the world. That's like saying Jesus and his teachings are irrelevant if you don't believe in Christ. What poppycock! His impact on history is undeniable regardless of your beliefs. The same applies here. It was written the way it was written, which directly influenced what came afterward. Since you we're there in person your opinion has no more weight than anyone else's.
You have your viewpoint, I have mine. Since you choose to purposely misinterpret what I've said we have nothing else to discuss.
I didn't "misrepresent" anything. You said:
For example, yelling "Fire" in a crowned theater is obviously protected under the 1st as written, yet we outlaw such irresponsible behavior today - and I suspect the Founders would agree.
It, "as written," says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And any "Founder" would say such a thing is up to the states, not that it was "allowed" under the First Amendment. The First Amendment as written concerned only Congress, and Congress had no prerogative to say anything about inciting panic.
You COULD have just conceded it as a
small point many posts ago, but no, you decided instead to build it into a
large debacle, in which you've displayed an ignorance of the development of Bill of Rights jurisprudence, the doctrine of incorporation, AND the understanding of the Founders.
The Founders were just fine with laws against inciting panic, and
always were. The Founders also a) never intended Congress to concern itself with such an obvious local and state matter, so the Constitution was entirely irrelevant to it, and b) indeed considered the Bill of Rights as only applying to the federal government, because that's what the Bill of Rights was intended to limit. The protection of rights against local governments was handled at that level, not the federal level.
Thus, such incitement of panic was not a 1st Amendment issue AS WRITTEN, nor by the contemplation of the Founders.
As I said, you could have just conceded the point when it was small and concerned only the language of the 1A. But no, you didn't like being called on something even
that small, no matter how obviously wrong you were (and in asking "who cares" about Congress, you indicate you didn't even actually know what it said, "as written"), so you had to be stubborn and blow it up into something big which just made things worse for you.
Never mind that not even HOLMES argued that the First Amendment originally protected yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. That case is so badly misquoted it isn't even funny.
