Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not merely legal, it's praiseworthy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

One of the standard platitudes trotted out to justify restrictions on free speech is that it should not be legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

But even a few seconds thought should lead to the conclusion that not merely is yelling "fire" at a crowded theatre legal, but not doing so may be actively culpable, *if the theatre is on fire*.

And, because of that, it also *has* to be legal to yell fire at a crowded theatre even if the theatre is *not* on fire, but you genuinely believe it is.

The only time in which yelling "fire" at a crowded theatre should be illegal is when the yeller believes that the theatre is not on fire.


Even if what you're saying is stupid and the consequences are potentially harmful, the "fire at a crowded theatre" analogue only helps justify censoring you if it can be shown that you *know* that what you are saying is wrong, rather than just stupidly believing it to be true.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Can we get some context?

I'm assuming you didn't just decide to write this in a vacuum, so what was the antecedent to this thread?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I specifically did write this in a vacuum.

It's a line I've seen used repeatedly in many contexts, and thought was silly at the time, but I wanted to wait until an occasion when people would consider the point on its own merits, rather than as a proxy for some other discussion.

So, if you like, the context is the lack of relevant context. But please bear it in mind next time you see something that it is relevant to...

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Let me suggest a hypothetical context.

A white cop in a Wal Mart has been told through a 911 call that an armed black man is pointing a loaded assault rifle around and threatening people with it. The cop, believing the guy is highly dangerous and abut to kill someone, acts on this belief and shoots down the man with the gun. It turns out that the "assault rifle" is actually a very realistic-looking toy gun the man had picked off the shelf. If the misinformed cop acted on the belief that he was dealing with an armed and exceedingly dangerous person, was the shooting justified?

[ReRe]

38. Great analogy, Jackpine n/t

[riqster]

39. And what of the caller who lied to 911? Praiseworthy?

Good post, Jp R.

[Bandit]

45. Where I come from we call that brush shooting

You are out hunting and hear a noise in the brush. You blast away without ever actually determining what caused the noise.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. We call them "sound shots."

[Egnever]

2. Quite possibly the silliest thing I have read today.

Not sure what the point is supposed to be.

[cali]

3. Of course, but I disagree with your interpretation

that metaphor is clearly meant as falsely yelling fire... In fact, the original wording included the word falsely. In other words, speech that clearly imminently physically endangers people is not protected.

[valerief]

4. Belief shouldn't enter into it.

The only time in which yelling "fire" at a crowded theatre should be illegal is when the yeller believes that the theatre is not on fire.

If the yeller can provide enough evidence that it would be reasonable to conclude the theater was on fire, then it should be legal. After all, the yeller might believe in creationism, but that doesn't make it true and there's no evidence it's true.

[merrily]

5. When that example was given, it was specified that the "yell" was false.

It was not stated, but I think was fairly implied from the context, that the person doing the yelling never believed the theater was on fire.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/249/47/case.html (the opinion)

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/schenck.html

(ABA discussion of key points of the opinion)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case

(wiki discussion of the opinion)

Moreover, it was about the false yell not being protected by the First Amendment.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. Exactly! Thanks for posting that ...

and saving me the trouble

[merrily]

11. You're welcome, but remember,

it's your turn on the next one.

(j/k)

[Tuesday Afternoon]

14. for realz

[rock]

7. "I fell into a vat of chocolate and I yelled, 'Fire!'"

"Would you come running if I yelled, 'Chocolate!'?"
- Tom smothers.

[moriah]

8. What Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. actually said:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. ^ woot ^

thanks

[merrily]

12. The actual holding of the case was, in my opinion, a wretched one, but it's good to get

but it's good to get straight what exactly the Schenck opinion actually said about yelling fire.

Mercifully, Brandenburg overruled the odious holding of the Schenck case.

[Kaleva]

13. Holmes position has been superseded by Supreme Court rulings made 40 some years ago

"In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine)."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[moriah]

16. Yeah, still, he never tried to say a true cry of "fire!" would be a violation of free speech.

And this was shortly after the Italian Hall Disaster, so it was still fresh in the news that 59 innocent children died as a result of such a false cry.

Killing 73 people, including 59 children, is not "praiseworthy" by any stretch of the imagination -- but OWH never tried to say a true cry of "fire" was wrong. Even if it's been overturned now, it's helpful when discussing the statement to understand the climate of the times and what *was* actually said.

[merrily]

23. Thanks for that. Holmes's "yelling fire" example was never overturned.

The holding of the Schenck case was overturned in 1989, but not that example.

This was the holding of the Schenck case:

A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense.

Brandenburg v. Ohio overruled that horrendous holding.

[merrily]

17. His position on falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater has not been overruled, though.

The actual holding of the Schenck case was overruled, but the example of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater not being protected by the 1st amend. has been used over and over.

[Kaleva]

30. Can you provide an example of anyone in the past 40 years charged with thus?

Or cite an actual law which states it is illegal to yell fire in a public place while knowing there isn't a fire? I bet you can't.

[Lex]

31. There are laws against "inducing a panic" which is what

the whole yelling fire in a public place, when there wasn't a fire, was about.

Such as: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2917.31

[Kaleva]

35. A link to an article where a case was dimissed

"Case Dismissed Against Columbia Station Man Charged With Inducing Panic for Online Commentary.....Resovsky was arrested in December. He obtained legal aid from the ACLU of Ohio and pleaded not guilty to the inducing panic charge, arguing that his statements were protected under the First Amendment. Today, the Medina city law director explained to the court that he had reviewed the facts of the case, and determined that Resovsky’s statements were constitutionally protected. "

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/case-dismissed-against-columbia-station-man-charged-inducing-panic-online


Edit: I stand corrected about there not being any laws on the books or about no one being charged. I was wrong but it does appear that such laws will not stand up to scrutiny and in the above example, charges against a person were dismissed.

[Lex]

36. Right, there are laws. And people aren't always guilty of breaking them

each and every time they are charged.

[reddread]

37. "incite to riot"

cop pulled that out and waved it at me, threatening arrest during a very contentious demo in 91, when we still did that sort of thing.

[merrily]

44. What does that have to do with anything that I posted?

[freshwest]

41. Now spinning in his grave because of Faux, Gohmert, Beck and the rest.

EDIT: another poster, however has given more context to the statement than just the quote. Makes it look a lot different than the quote alone.

[hobbit709]

15. Yell "Theater" at a crowded fire.

[randome]

21. That's just playing into the fire's...um...hands.

Yell 'Water!' at a crowded fire and make it think twice.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

[hobbit709]

24. It was an Abbie Hoffman quote

[Jackpine Radical]

29. Beat me to it.

[jberryhill]

18. That's because you don't have the quote correct in the first place

The original quote from an opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes was to:

"falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

The only time in which yelling "fire" at a crowded theatre should be illegal is when the yeller believes that the theatre is not on fire.

That is also incorrect.

If the yeller has an objectively reasonable belief it is on fire, that's fine.

But if the yeller was being reckless, or should have known it was not on fire, that would still be actionable as to anyone injured by the yeller's negligent or reckless behavior, regardless of the yeller's subjective state of mind.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. I'm not quoting Holmes, I'm quoting people quoting him. N.T.

[jberryhill]

22. People slaughter these things

Most people think "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible.

[Ron Obvious]

19. Fire

I'm reminded on Christopher Hitchens' brilliant speech on free speech which seems apposite here.

[freshwest]

42. Oh, wow! Thanks! Great video by Hitch! I'm going to let that sink in...

[LanternWaste]

25. Isn't the clear and common usage of that phrase directly implying the person doing the yelling knows

Isn't the clear and common usage of that phrase directly implying the person doing the yelling knows he is being false?

[elleng]

26. NO.

Yelling Fire in a 'crowded' theater results in chaos, and injuries, simply due to the rush. Quickly informing authorities to organize safe exit IS legal and necessary.

[cascadiance]

27. That was what I was looking for...

The first option is to look to someone of authority if present to alert them to something you think is a real fire before yelling it out and causing more problems. If you feel that not doing so will perhaps cost more lives than it saves by not saying so, and you don't see anyone else to tell this to, then perhaps as a last option, I would say it is what many would do. I think though the idea is to use your brain first and find a way to see if a fire can be controlled first before a whole group of people potentially unaffected by it hear "fire" and get hurt when they might not if you and a few others use fire extinguishers effectively, etc.

I think this is a metaphor to say that one shouldn't just feel you are blindly justifying something that might hurt a lot of others that wouldn't be hurt if you'd taken some other action instead. Freedom of speech doesn't absolutely protect not using someone's brain to do the right thing at the right time.

[jamzrockz]

32. Christopher Hitchens - In Defense Of Unpopular Speech

Hitchens speech comes to mind here

I would add unpopular and dangerous speech

[sarisataka]

33. Say said person yells "fire"

after smelling smoke and person dies from being trampled in the rush to escape. It turns out the smoke was popcorn that became stuck in the cooker.

Who is at fault for the death?
-the person who yelled fire, believing that there was a potentially dangerous situation
-the person(s) who trampled the victim in the panic, truly believing there was danger
-the victim for not moving as fast as others expected
-the counter clerk for not assuming the smell of burning popcorn could be misconstrued as a fire and taking immediate action
-the popcorn distributor for not making burn-proof popcorn
-the man sitting at the bus stop on the corner eating a bag of popcorn he bought at the grocery store
-someone else
-no one, everyone acted as they believed the situation to be and in was a tragic accident

Would the action still be called praiseworthy: despite the death, only without the death, not at all because there was never any danger?

[randome]

46. Hands down, it would be your fault no matter where you were at the time.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cleita]

34. Well try it some time and see where it gets you.

I say most likely it will get you a fine and/or time in jail plus paying for all the fire dept and police cost to answer the call.

[riqster]

40. "Genuinely believe" is what Teabaggers use to deny science.

Acting on the basis of a "belief" that is contradicted by evidence is not praiseworthy, it is delusional and can cause great harm.

[freshwest]

43. What if they don't believe the guy yelling fire until it's no longer a matter of belief?

[randome]

47. Fire can only harm you if you believe it can.

Fawlty Towers Forever!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[riqster]

49. Like the apartment building in the Monty Python sketch.

[freshwest]

53. Basil gives voice to my frustration, awful me!

During a PBS marathon they played the entire series and said, 'We know you're taping it, enjoy!'

Which I did and years later converted the whole thing to play on my computer. Cleese was a god with the physical comedy.

[riqster]

50. Evidence is always to be respected. And it trumps belief.

This it is with evolution, vaccination, climate change, and fire.

[tularetom]

51. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

As long as we're debating silly statements.

[tazkcmo]

52. 42 n/t