Was there actually a first amendment issue?

Posted by DFWUnhinged@reddit | lebowski | View on Reddit | 152 comments

In the diner scene, Walter launches into the full “this is America… I watched my friends die face down in the muck…” speech, but this time it’s not even about a gun, it’s basically over basic diner etiquette.

So what’s the ruling here:

Is this actually a first amendment moment, or is Walter just speedrunning constitutional law straight into a plate of eggs and coffee?

Like, did he really watch his friends die face down in the muck just so he could… ignore house rules at a random family restaurant?

And the bigger question:

does Walter genuinely believe he’s defending freedom in that moment, or is Vietnam just his universal “I win this argument” button no matter the situation?

Also, did he finish his coffee?

[-]

PenZestyclose3857@reddit

He did his own research.

In fairness, he seems to understand the Constitution about as well as Florida's interim attorney general.

[-]

PenZestyclose3857@reddit

No, but she might have violated his HIPAA rights.

[-]

romulusnr@reddit

No, because it's a private business

[-]

MinusGovernment@reddit

Well it's not a literal connection Dude.

[-]

Unusual-Caramel8442@reddit

Not a 1A moment, dude.

The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint, but that only applies to govt actions, not the rules of a private residence (or establishment), man….

[-]

zoomzoom913@reddit

I hate the fuckin Eagles man!

[-]

Feisty-Area-1085@reddit

Please, dear?

[-]

Unusual-Caramel8442@reddit

And yeah dude, I think he did finish his coffee

[-]

DHooligan@reddit

Uj/the first question whenever analyzing a free speech claim is whether the party restricting speech is a government actor. Walter is off on some shit in this scene.

[-]

GrandPaGames1@reddit

This isn’t a First Amendment thing, man.

[-]

AZ-Sycamore@reddit

The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

[-]

2wheelsThx@reddit

Sir, if you don't keep your voices down, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave.

[-]

Odd-Adagio7080@reddit

Excuse me. MA’AM?

[-]

boop66@reddit

"Dear"

[-]

Odd-Adagio7080@reddit

Thank you

[-]

boop66@reddit

This is uh, family restaurant.

[-]

Thick_Comedian_6707@reddit

Calmer than you are.

[-]

Necessary-Sock7075@reddit

chuckle I'm finished my coffee...

[-]

Necessary-Sock7075@reddit

The Texas Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

[-]

2Hawaii@reddit

Wallet is all about the second amendment

[-]

NocaSun38@reddit

This affects all of us man!!!

[-]

nlc1009@reddit

Our basic freedoms!!!

[-]

SirLoinTheTender@reddit

Far from it.

[-]

Karn_Evil_Noin@reddit

So is it like some kind of Eastern thing?

[-]

Similar-Sir-2952@reddit

Im finishing my coffee

[-]

DatBeardedguy82@reddit

Im staying.

[-]

DistributionDizzy241@reddit

Calmer than you are.

[-]

sorotomotor@reddit

His revolution is over. Condolences. The bums lost.

[-]

tkraw33@reddit

I’m no constitutional scholar. In fact, in college, I spent most of my time in various administrative buildings.

[-]

Temporary_Ad_247@reddit

If you don't calm down I'm going to have to ask you to leave

[-]

nonstopflux@reddit

Are we splitting hairs here?

[-]

nahnprophet@reddit

That's fucking interesting, man...

...but there's no constitutional violation without action taken by the government.

[-]

SoupIsNotAMeal@reddit

What are you, a fucking constitutional scholar now?

[-]

nahnprophet@reddit

Well, yeah man.

If you're not into the whole brevity thing.

[-]

edmechem@reddit

Nan-prophet, is that like the Indian food answer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? 🤔😄

[-]

nahnprophet@reddit

Well yeah, man.

[-]

flactulantmonkey@reddit

Supreme Court can try and juris their diction on our private property soldier!

[-]

jammieswithbuttflaps@reddit

We're SYMPATHIZING

[-]

couldbeworse2@reddit

Well that’s just, like, the majority opinion, man

[-]

HankScorpio82@reddit

But judicial review isn’t a thing, dude.

[-]

OrangeBug74@reddit

Walter is such a blowhard. I’d love more back story on him and how he met the Dude. But he can’t even scatter ashes correctly.

[-]

SillySal@reddit

Oh, please dear?!

[-]

BigBlueMagic@reddit

No. The waitress is not a state actor, and therefore there can be no First Amendment violation, or, in turn prior restraint.

HOWEVER--- this line is quoted in several published opinions by various federal courts as to prior restraint. Therefore, this isn't merely a line from a movie anymore. It is a citable statement of law. I have a friend who is a first amendment lawyer who cites to Walter Sobchak on a regular basis.

[-]

JoeInOR@reddit

Excuse me, DEAR?

[-]

SixtyNoine69@reddit

Well, Dude, we just don't know.

[-]

aqaba_is_over_there@reddit

Walter is wrong and is an asshole.

If he didn't quiet down and was asked to leave amd didn't, I imagine he could face trespassing and/or disturbing the peace charges if the cops where called.

[-]

Tangible_Slate@reddit

Yeah every crappy diner has a “we reserve the right to refuse service” sign

[-]

AZ-Sycamore@reddit

This is a family restaurant

[-]

psychicstan@reddit

Eight year olds dude

[-]

Separate_Artichoke98@reddit

Put the piece away, man

[-]

no_bender@reddit

Oh, please dear! For your information: the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

[-]

TheKeeperOfThe90s@reddit

So...

It's not a First Amendment issue, because the diner is a private business and they have the right to refuse service to people who are being a nuisance.
Vietnam is definitely a default thing for him, but I think it goes deeper than just an 'I win this argument' button: I think he's got alot of trauma there and a major hunk of Walter's worldview is that Vietnam is tied in with everything rotten in the world.
He probably did finish his coffee, because he stopped yelling and swearing, so the waitress had no reason to call the cops, and after she stopped paying attention to him he probably even stopped the 'I'm staying! I'm finishing my coffee!' stuff: his act of 'protest' was essentially doing what she was telling him to do anyway.

Or, you know... that's what I think, anyway.

[-]

The_Editorial_We_@reddit

Oh please, dear?

[-]

Impressive-Clerk3778@reddit

Lawyer here. The first amendment only applies to government regulating speech. A family diner kicking someone out for vulgar speech doesn’t raise a constitutional issue because the diner is NOT the government.

This scene is about unchecked aggression, drawing a line in the sand

[-]

peanut_butter_zen@reddit

This affects all of us man!

[-]

Calicocutjeans@reddit

Our basic freedoms!

[-]

Upbeat_Turnover9253@reddit

What do you need those for, dude?

[-]

Dweebil@reddit

Prior restraint? It sorta fits. But probably not worth dying in the muck over.

[-]

JasonYaya@reddit

Walters friends dying in the muck is like Cotton Hill's "I lost my shins in the war," justification for terrible behavior. On that note, a KOTH-Lebowski crossover would be an incredible thing to see.

[-]

no_vale_verga817@reddit

I didn’t blame anyone for the loss of my legs. Some chinaman took them from in Korea,but I went out and achieved anyway! Heh heh

[-]

Ok-Adeptness3884@reddit

Mike Judge's work has been commended as strongly vaginal.

[-]

torch9t9@reddit

Were you listening to the Dude's constitution, man? You're like a small child who wanders out of civics class, never to return....

[-]

RedditGotSoulDoubt@reddit

The diner isn’t owned by the state, so no

[-]

CarberHotdogVac@reddit

Well maybe it should be, man. It’s like De La Rocha says, ya know? “fuck the cheeseburgers, I want the machines that are makin em.”

[-]

no_vale_verga817@reddit

I am the walrus

[-]

mtlpvd@reddit

The first amendment is not the issue here, dude.

[-]

aaalllouttabubblegum@reddit

This is about unchecked aggression.

[-]

JoeDaddio@reddit

I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude.

[-]

Buckeye_Country@reddit

Over this line you do not..

[-]

Johnsendall@reddit

Also dude. Freedom of speech is not the preferred nomenclature. The First Amendment, please.

[-]

Separate_Artichoke98@reddit

OVER THE LINE!

[-]

psychicstan@reddit

Mark it zero Smokey

[-]

MarcoMarti1981@reddit

Bullshit Walter, I wasn’t over the line. Mark it 8, dude…

[-]

russgrim@reddit

Wuddnt

[-]

EntertainerOk9179@reddit

This aggression will not stand . . . Man . . .

[-]

Bigspotdaddy@reddit

Am i wrong?!

[-]

EleventyTrillion@reddit

I know my rights, man.

[-]

BrandtCantWatch@reddit

Calmer then you are

[-]

globehopper2@reddit

As has been said, this isn’t a first amendment thing, man.

To be more specific, the first amendment is meant to keep the government (local, state, or federal) from interfering with your right to peacefully express your beliefs or speak more generally. That doesn’t mean a private business can’t ask you to leave if you won’t stop yelling. Private people asking speech to stop is different than the state trying to stop free expression on public land.

Also, fyi, the government can generally put some restrictions on time, place, and manner of speech as long as it is applied equally. For example, a city might restrict protests between 12 AM and 6 AM in residential areas of the city. But it cannot prevent them all the time or only restrict this group or that group from protesting.

[-]

TheEventHorizon0727@reddit

No state actor? No First Amendment issue.

[-]

LawrenceSellers@reddit

As I tell my students, the first amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT’S ability to restrict speech. It in no way prohibits your fellow citizens for expressing THEIR opinion that YOUR opinion makes you an asshole.

[-]

Ornery-Scholar9973@reddit

Excuse me sir, could you please keep your voices down, this is a family restaurant.

[-]

OnionTamer@reddit

No, it is not. A First Amendment issue would be if the police arrested him for swearing on the street. A private business can ask you to keep it down and/or to leave their business.

[-]

FlammenwerferX@reddit

If there’s one thing I learned in Nam…

[-]

ChicagoDash@reddit

This is not Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.

[-]

Slipshoooood@reddit

This aggression will not stand, man.

[-]

Krispykid54@reddit

Well Dude we just dont know..

[-]

rpgnymhush@reddit

No. The restaurant is private property and the owners/ managers have a right to set rules of conduct for their establishment.

[-]

Virtual-Location-982@reddit

Prior Restraint

[-]

darsvedder@reddit

the fuck you talkin about?

[-]

Eleatic-Stranger@reddit

The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

[-]

CarberHotdogVac@reddit

Fucking fascists.

[-]

2JarSlave@reddit

They were threatening castration. Are we going to split hairs here?

[-]

bustanut_dabmaster@reddit

At least it’s an ethos.

[-]

wheresjim@reddit

You’re out of your element, Donnie

[-]

ddiknosaj@reddit

He’s not wrong he’s just an asshole

[-]

CriticalSuit1336@reddit

Let's ask Bill Kunstler or Ron Kubee

[-]

hempels_sofa@reddit

Phone's ringing, Dude.

[-]

Bright-Potato7907@reddit

Mind if I do a J?

[-]

YwTv367v@reddit

You’re flunking social studies.

[-]

HCPage@reddit

Kids a dunce.

[-]

Murky_Historian8675@reddit

What are you a fukin politician?

[-]

paygunholiday@reddit

I’m not Bill Kunstler or Ron Kuby but the wiki says (if you’re not into the whole brevity thing):

Prior restraint is censorship imposed, usually by a government or institution, on expression, that prohibits particular instances of expression.

[-]

CarberHotdogVac@reddit

And this particular instance of expression simply involved an elevated tone of voice in an otherwise quiet family restaurant.

After, I might add, watching buddies die face down in the mud on behalf of the US federal government, in exchange for implied oral consent to the future public enjoyment of exactly such a location.

Nothing is fucked, dude. Are we splitting hairs here?

[-]