Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

Forums

  1. COMMUNITY NEWS & SUPPORT

    1. 2.1k
      posts
    2. 113k
      posts
      • Witzig
    3. GAMEPLAY SUPPORT/TRAINING

      Tips and Tricks to make you a machine of warfare in WWII Online. This is where your gameplay questions will be answered.

      2.2k
      posts
    4. TESTING AND BUG REPORTING

      Repository for reports from pre-release testing and live game bugs.

      53k
      posts
    5. PLAYER AWARDS

      Player to Player awards! Whether you're Allied or Axis, check this forum to see who has been recognized for outstanding effort!

      5.1k
      posts
  2. CHOKEPOINT PLAYER DISCUSSIONS

      • No posts here yet
    1. 127
      posts
    2. 55
      posts
  • Member Statistics

    723,690
    Total Members
    1,080
    Most Online
    lucasse343
    Newest Member
    lucasse343
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    435.8k
    Total Topics
    6.7m
    Total Posts
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

    • gretnine
  • Posts

    • sorella
      Crayons, nitrocellulose and Brandenburg v. Ohio. This is now officially an Off-Topic topic. "FIRE!"
    • madrebel
      you're completely missing the point now, perhaps others can draw with crayon for you ... i never once claimed the 'reason' for theaters fires had anything to do with court cases. was merely trying to point out the why that lead to the well known potential hazards one might face going to the theater in the early 1900s.
    • Capco
      It has nothing to do with an actual presence of a fire.  It has everything to do with people getting trampled to death due to someone falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded area.   In the 19th and early 20th centuries, panics caused by false shouts of "fire" in crowded theaters and other venues were not uncommon.  Most notably, the Canonsburg Opera House disaster of 1911 led to 26 deaths, and the 1913 Italian Hall disaster saw 73 people die in the crush that ensued from a false alarm in a crowded banquet hall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonsburg_Opera_House_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster Find me an actual court case that cites nitrocellulose film as the principal reason for this hallmark example that is still being taught in law school, and I'll believe that more than a Tarentino reference.  I'm providing legitimate sources (including binding court cases), and you're just saying whatever. It's almost as if you read nothing else that I posted.  
    • lovewing
      You can turn it off for in the air but I think you can turn it off on ground too if you move slider all the way to the left. If it still shows up when turned to the left then let us know so we can figure it out. I always turn off things that are able to be turned off because it may otherwise obscure my view etc.
    • enabore03
      Yes the radial clutter, the grass. I turned it down but didn't know you can turn it off. When it catches the light the grass lights up so it strobes as you move. Everything else seems to be working fine.
    • madrebel
      no this is well known, nitrocellulose film was the type of film used when the moving pictures thing began even up till the early 'talkies' it was still in use. nitrocellulose can spontanteously combust at low temperatures, 103 degrees F. combine that with the wide public use of smoking and you get a butt load of theater fires and a public very aware of and concerned about the pobability of a fire breaking out in the theater. hence, don't yell fire in a crowded theater (at the time) as everyone will panic due to the very well known threat of fire. a threat caused by nitrocellulose film stock. this was used as a plot device in Tarrentino's Inglorious [censored]. Was a neat little historical nod to early cinema wrapped in the plot to kill mustachio. However by the 40s when Tarrentino's film takes place, nitrocellulose would have been on the way out. just pointing out this is the reason tarrentino used film as the fire starter.
    • Capco
      Sigh.  At best, you can say my statement was worded poorly.  Instead, I should have just left it as an example of unprotected speech, because: https://reason.com/2023/10/24/how-to-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).  This is the same test still in use today by courts for evaluating government attempts to punish inflammatory speech.   Justice Black and Justice Douglas wrote separate opinions concurring with the rest of the Court's per curiam decision in Brandenburg.  This is notable because both of them were the only First Amendment absolutists on the Court, and even they recognized that the First Amendment's protections had their limits.  In Justice Douglas's own words from his concurrence: So yes, there actually are instances of speech that are not immune from prosecution, however rare they may be.  And this "fire" example is specifically cited in Brandenburg as one of those rare instances, which again is the current US case law on inflammatory speech.   Basically, while you might have other legal defenses, you wouldn't be able to assert a First Amendment defense in the "fire" example since your speech explicitly fails the Brandenburg test.  The speech itself would become "inseparable" from the acts caused.   PS - Nothing in the court cases I read mentioned anything about nitrocellulose film.  That definitely sounds more like an urban legend "debunking" myth you might have picked up during your past forum adventures.
    • madrebel
      this has been debunked for ages. it is NOT a crime to do this. note, not suggesting you should although the reason the judge at the time used this as an example is no longer relevant as we don't use nitrocellulose film anymore. it was a pithy rejoinder at the time, a (very dark) analog today would be yelling "omg mass shooter" at a school. equally appalling, but not technically illegal. this passage was taken out of context from the judges original use of such to highlight a 'possible' limitation on the first amendment. i challenge you to prove otherwise.   uh huh, not suggesting you should allow this however litigating these is rarely easy.  
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Tatonka
      Tatonka
      38
    2. 2
      sorella
      sorella
      30
    3. 3
      Jsilec
      Jsilec
      23
    4. 4
      Silky
      Silky
      18
    5. 5
      Sudden
      Sudden
      18
    6. 6
      Kilemall
      Kilemall
      17
    7. 7
      csm308
      csm308
      15
    8. 8
      aef
      aef
      11
    9. 9
      gasPipe
      gasPipe
      10
    10. 10
      Capco
      Capco
      8
×
×
  • Create New...