Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)
Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money).
I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.
> Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.)
The "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from the supreme court decision in Schenk v. US, which is all but defunct today.
> Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
I don't believe the "imminent" part of that phrase leaves much open for interpretation.
> Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued
Of course not. But as my father (who is a lawyer) is fond of saying, anyone can sue anyone else at any time. That doesn't mean they are likely to succeed.
> I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.
I'll concede that legal liability might be an issue in this case, though that's for lawyers to decide. The point of my original comment was primarily to debunk an outdated legal standard. I got sidetracked with what I will now admit is poor additional legal analysis.
I will now admit my initial analysis was poor because after doing a tad more research, I stumbled into a far more pertinent case. That case is Rice v. Paladin Enterprises [1]. Back in 1983, Paladin Enterprises published a limited-run hitman manual [2]. A decade later, a convicted hitman noted that he had picked up tips from this book; this led a circuit court to hold that book was unprotected speech. This paved the way for civil sanctions against Paladin Enterprises. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and Paladin's insurance company settled for an undisclosed sum.
Drawing parallels to the current issue is left as an exercise for the reader.
Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way.
Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money).
I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.