You can't "FIRE!!" in a movie theater.... So it follows that....

[garybeck]

You can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater.

This is always cited as one of the limitations on free speech. We are told about it in middle school.

I have a question.

The assumption is, that there is no fire, of course, and your YELL is false, there is no fire, but your yell could cuase people to be hurt or die, just in the rush of the mass exit.

If you can't yell "FIRE" when there is one, and this is a violation of free speech,
wouldn't it stand to reason that the opposite also a violation of free speech?

If you are in a movie theater,
and there IS a fire,
and you yell "THERE IS NO FIRE! STAY IN YOUR SEATS! WATCH THE FREAKING MOVIE!"

wouldn't that also be a violation of free speech?
wouldn't that also have a result of injury and death resulting from your speech?

and isn't that exactly what we have been seeing from David Nunes, other republicans, and several Fox News hosts?

I would think that if the underlying principle of the limitation on free speech is that basic lying is legal, but not if it directly affects the health and welfare of lots of people.

I would suggest that anyone going on TV (a large public forum equivalent of a movie theatre) minimizing the seriousness of the Trumpvirus, or suggestingthat people should continue to go out at this point, is basically yelling fire in a movie theatre, and they are violating their right to free speech.

[jberryhill]

1. Yeah, well, it doesn't work that way

In a dark and crowded theater, I cannot critically evaluate at a personal remove, the veracity or reliability of voices shouting in the dark. I cannot choose to disregard them as fools or not.

In the context of that theater, I must then and there make an immediate decision to act in the face of an imminent danger, and do not have the luxury of consulting with others in the theater who may know more about the circumstances or to debate them. I cannot walk into the theater next door and see what the people in that one think.

That is wildly different from watching TV.

Fox News, and the people on it, are one of a number of competing sources of information which people may choose, or not, to watch and believe. Additionally, these sources of information debate with one another and call one another out on alleged falsehoods. Nothing Devin Nunes might have to say is going to make someone rush out in a sudden panic to infect others or to be infected by others thinking, "Dear Lord, please send me someone to cough on right here and now!"

Does someone you know reasonably rely on Devin Nunes as a source of health advice? Would a reasonable person objectively do so?

There's all kinds of media information which might be harmful if uncritically acted upon and believed. That doesn't make it an imminent threat of the type to which that adage is only a rough approximation of the actual law on the subject.

And where do you go with this? What, in your view of the First Amendment, should a court do, even if it agreed with you? Should it:

- ban Devin Nunes from speaking on TV about any subject;

- stop Fox News from broadcasting any program about any subject;

- ban Fox News, or anyone on Fox News, from saying anything from a "list of things which shall not be said"; or

- fill in your remedy here.

If your response is some generalized form of "lock 'em up", that's not what happens in First Amendment cases in the first place. A restriction of speech rights in these circumstances must be specifically and narrowly directed to the imminent and immediate harm you believe will occur without it.

So, forget that the law doesn't support you. Imagine it does and tell me what you'd want a court to do about it?

[garybeck]

4. ok i'm game.

i understand what you're saying and you're probably correct from a legal standpoint (i'm not a lawyer or anything close to it).

but to answer your question, if we assume for the moment that my argument is correct and it is illegal to mislead people in a way that results in injury or death, I think an appropriate action would be on two levels, like many other crimes. Criminally I would think it would be fairly mild like a misdemeanor, with the intention of just getting people to stop doing it. But civilly, if someone was watching TV and saw David Nunes blatantly telling us to disobey guidelines and to go out to a restaurant and someone could prove they contracted the virus because of that specific advice, then I would think there is a case to be made for a civil suit. again i'm not a lawyer.

so indulge me for a moment here:

when people sell snake oil and make false claims about products, it is illegal. that is because you could take their product and not get the real remedy you need to get healthy and you could get sicker or die. or perhaps the snake oil could even get you sick on its own. you said that Nunes speech is not illegal because people can do their own research and watch other TV shows and make an informed decision. Similarly, the victims of the snake oil salesmen can do research and look at other products and studies and decide on their own. It's still illegal to make false claims about products. so if you apply that principle to Nunes/Fox News and other people with an appearance of authority who are publicly claiming (in a time of crisis and confusion mind you) that the threat is not serious and people should continue to go out and mingle, aren't they selling snake oil?

to me the metaphor is that the movie theatre is on fire. everyone is everyone is running for the door. but one asshole is saying there is no fire, it's media hype, and we should stay in the theatre. even if just one person listens to them and dies, just because they are stupid, I would think there would be a liability for the person who said they should stay in there.

just an interesting discussion. I'm not suggesting that Nunes will ever see a day in jail over this... but I have seen some suggest it and that is what got me wondering

[jberryhill]

5. Big distinction with commercial speech

Like him or not, this is a member of the United States Congress expressing his opinion to the public.

What if LBJ was lying about Vietnam?

What if GWB was lying about weapons of mass destruction?

False advertising of commercial products aside, the "yelling fire in the theater" thing is about yelling it falsely. Devin Nunes can be dumb as a brick, but he's not selling a product or getting some kind of sick jollies by being dumb as a brick. He actually is that dumb.

So are we talking about having to prove whether Nunes is knowingly making false statements, or is the standard that we're going to penalize people for saying stupid things on TV?

[garybeck]

6. for me the standard would be

yes we would have to prove that he knowingly is misleading people to do things that would put them in harms way.

it would not be difficult to prove it was done knowingly. he has been informed and debriefed even more than we have, by more experts than we have. there are records of him sitting in meetings where experts have explained it to him, i'm sure.

[renate]

2. I'd love to hear from a lawyer about this

I assume it depends on whether you spread harmful information deliberately or just because you're an f-ing moron, but maybe it's different for a "news" source using the public airwaves that has access to correct information but chooses to lie and cover up.

[jberryhill]

3. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13220306