General Discussion

intaglio

(8,170 posts)

35. I did read the (several) articles

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 10:42 AM

Dec 2013

The point is that the declaration did not cause panic. It was the realisation of actual physical effects. Not even people trying to get away spooked the rest of the audience, it was the fact that the evidence from noise and flight could not be explained away. Dealing with your final point, planting actors in the audience for performance effects has been used in the theatre for more than a century

In the same way Hitchens begins his, singular, talk by shouting fire and, guess what? It has no effect. Your point about the boy shouting "wolf" is apposite because in that tale no-one harms the lad or imprisons him for his error. Should the boy shouting "wolf" be sent for therapy or to juvenile hall after the first offense?

But the point of Holmes' observation was about the bad effects of free speech and how you should limit it on the basis of fear. My point is that you should not limit it solely on that basis.

I'll post the links to the Hitchens videos in a couple of minutes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

131 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can we finally kill the meme about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? [View all] intaglio Dec 2013 OP

meme? pipoman Dec 2013 #1

But it is used all the time regarding limitations to free speech intaglio Dec 2013 #2

It is an excellent example of the limitations on free speech Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #3

Check the BBC recording intaglio Dec 2013 #4

The significant part of Holmes' dictum Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #19

And how do you distinguish the cases? intaglio Dec 2013 #41

So you are saying that it SHOULD be okay to go into a crowded theater and announce VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #51

Firstly you are assuming that panic will automatically ensue intaglio Dec 2013 #62

"firstly" we know that this happens... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #72

How do you know "this happens"? intaglio Dec 2013 #91

Actually YES you can....you can even be arresteprosecuted for assault just for threatening someone VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #93

Ok, so you are talking about current law intaglio Dec 2013 #95

I am talking about common sense... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #102

Then get the 1st amendment changed no further text. intaglio Dec 2013 #106

I don't have to....that would be you...I agree that if you pull the fire alarm... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #109

In pre-history, marybourg Dec 2013 #90

One could be charged with manslaughter, if people were killed... Kaleva Dec 2013 #81

The pulling the Fire Alarm in the next building you enter and see if there is a law against it! VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #103

No it's not the same thing Kaleva Dec 2013 #110

Yes it is...if there is no fire... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #111

There's a difference between panic and lawless behaviour Kaleva Dec 2013 #112

You seem determined to misunderstand Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #71

Hypothetical means that it reflects reality intaglio Dec 2013 #84

So, according to you, if you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #115

No I have shown that a shout of "Fire" or ... intaglio Dec 2013 #118

I agree that you have not shown that a shout of "fire" will not cause a panic Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #119

Proof - if fire alarms caused panics, why are they used to alert occupants of buildings? intaglio Dec 2013 #121

USSC reversed itself on that sometime ago. Kaleva Dec 2013 #78

So you are claiming that falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a panic is now OK? Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #116

One can be held liable for whatever happens after doing so. Kaleva Dec 2013 #123

Just what is the difference between falsely crying "fire" and falsely pulling a fire alarm? Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #125

Read the laws regarding fire alarms Kaleva Dec 2013 #126

So you cannot give me a specific difference, just some narrowly drawn laws. Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #127

I gave you a specific difference Kaleva Dec 2013 #128

Yes, you gave me a specific difference Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #129

It's meant to distinguish something treestar Dec 2013 #5

But false claims of fire do not induce panic any more than actual claims of the ceiling falling intaglio Dec 2013 #6

If there actually is a fire in the theater treestar Dec 2013 #11

The example shows that shouting to induce flight does not work intaglio Dec 2013 #14

I don't see that as credulous treestar Dec 2013 #15

Exactly, you would be ready to leave intaglio Dec 2013 #21

If someone screams "DUCK!" Kelvin Mace Dec 2013 #98

Have you ever tried that? intaglio Dec 2013 #100

Somepeople freeze Kelvin Mace Dec 2013 #108

It's not speech, it's an act treestar Dec 2013 #99

If the shouter had had the presence of mind to be more explicit, people might have responded. Denzil_DC Dec 2013 #16

I have noted elsewhere intaglio Dec 2013 #23

That's obviously the ax you're trying to grind. Denzil_DC Dec 2013 #29

I did read the (several) articles intaglio Dec 2013 #35

WTF does that have to do with the statement you are opposing? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #58

"I'll post the links to the Hitchens videos in a couple of minutes." Denzil_DC Dec 2013 #59

He seems to be forgetting what happened at that fire in the venue that Great White VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #57

Errm - you mean there was a fire and people panicked intaglio Dec 2013 #73

NO I am saying that even Great White got sued.... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #76

and I am saying that the you are using a false example intaglio Dec 2013 #82

Look its about being held responsible for the aftermath of shouting "FIRE".... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #55

And my point is that that aftermath does not exist intaglio Dec 2013 #74

but it CAN....its not JUST about yelling FIRE...there are any number of words... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #77

and my point again is that false alarms do not do what OWH said they did intaglio Dec 2013 #83

You have no point....you are defending the indefensible.... VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #85

So you are using a different case entirely? intaglio Dec 2013 #87

It isn't a threat. But it would be the better example to use kcr Dec 2013 #92

So can you pull a fire alarm in a building and not face charges? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2013 #104

Of course, criminal damage if nothing else intaglio Dec 2013 #107

It's only one example, and it's a terrible one. Captain Stern Dec 2013 #69

I have given 2 examples of actual danger intaglio Dec 2013 #79

Back when the most buildings were made of wood, did not have sprinklers or smoke detectors... Tigress DEM Dec 2013 #27

Evidence? intaglio Dec 2013 #40

History is full of actual theater fires, the Apollo London had no fire. Bluenorthwest Dec 2013 #53

It just shows that even as smart as most people are these days, we take some things for granted. Tigress DEM Dec 2013 #131

Google is your friend. IdaBriggs Dec 2013 #54

For which? The word "FIRE" causing fear in people at that time or current mob panic? Tigress DEM Dec 2013 #130

An example. antiquie Dec 2013 #56

Can we finally kill the word "meme"? scheming daemons Dec 2013 #7

It is a very useful word intaglio Dec 2013 #9

No one word Proud Public Servant Dec 2013 #22

No, it was coined as a term for a self perpetuating mode of thought intaglio Dec 2013 #26

So anything that illustates an idea is a meme? Proud Public Servant Dec 2013 #49

You aren't the only one jberryhill Dec 2013 #101

This is a perfect example of the kind of thread that clutters up DU reformist2 Dec 2013 #8

So a post about a false equivalence used to justify restrictions on free speech is clutter intaglio Dec 2013 #10

What you don't like it? treestar Dec 2013 #12

and the odd compulsion to participate in them. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #31

No. kcr Dec 2013 #13

But Holmes based his decision regarding rights not upon the actual for harm from a claim intaglio Dec 2013 #17

Well, yes. kcr Dec 2013 #25

The argument you are using here presupposes that you can read the intent of the speaker intaglio Dec 2013 #30

Or if someone repeatedly yells fire in theaters where there are none kcr Dec 2013 #33

Nope ... intaglio Dec 2013 #38

Well, fortunately you're wrong kcr Dec 2013 #42

I've asked you to prove intent intaglio Dec 2013 #44

Who said false claims only induce panic? kcr Dec 2013 #48

apparently, you're not familiar with the function of the conjunction 'and' Viking12 Dec 2013 #96

it worked better in the gaslight era when theaters regularly caught fire. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #32

That's true kcr Dec 2013 #34

They did - at Aurora n/t intaglio Dec 2013 #37

An actual gun was used in Aurora kcr Dec 2013 #43

Because in an actual incident no panic was caused intaglio Dec 2013 #45

No panic? kcr Dec 2013 #46

But Holmes claim was that the false claim would induce panic. intaglio Dec 2013 #52

What? kcr Dec 2013 #60

You are claiming that Holmes was correct in his assumption that the audience would panic intaglio Dec 2013 #64

Wow, with all these claims I'm making! kcr Dec 2013 #65

So now you are saying that Holmes was incorrect intaglio Dec 2013 #70

Of course Holmes was incorrect kcr Dec 2013 #75

OOOPS may well be, if so sorry intaglio Dec 2013 #80

You're being deliberately dense. GeorgeGist Dec 2013 #113

And my point was that such a false claim would not induce panic intaglio Dec 2013 #114

And exit doors didn't have those "panic bars" that they have now n/t arcane1 Dec 2013 #61

It's a legal phrase that was used to justify jailing antiwar protestors Recursion Dec 2013 #18

Yep. And that decision was overturned many years ago. NYC Liberal Dec 2013 #20

Nope, it was upheld by the Supreme Court under Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919 intaglio Dec 2013 #24

Yes: SCOTUS can reverse its own decisions in subsequent cases. NYC Liberal Dec 2013 #28

Ah limited - not "overturned" intaglio Dec 2013 #36

Yes, it was overturned. They threw out Schenck's very broad "clear and present danger" NYC Liberal Dec 2013 #50

I've mentioned the Christopher Hitchens lectures several times intaglio Dec 2013 #39

WTH? It's not a "meme." Lex Dec 2013 #47

Two points nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #63

The point is not where the event took place intaglio Dec 2013 #67

Lemme see, from the reports from the scene a warning was sounded nadinbrzezinski Dec 2013 #68

I do not think a small fire would have any different affect intaglio Dec 2013 #86

That is a really bizarre conclusion to draw from this news event Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #66

Name one intaglio Dec 2013 #88

Here's one Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2013 #105

What does a USSC ruling have to do with a tragedy in England? Blue_Tires Dec 2013 #89

For what feels like the umpteenth time intaglio Dec 2013 #94

Yes, because the cry was false Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #120

I have demonstrated that the assumption that the crowd will panic is false intaglio Dec 2013 #122

No, you have ASSERTED that the assumption that the crowd will panic is false. Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2013 #124

Actual panics and perhaps apologies to OWH intaglio Dec 2013 #97

If it were in the US, he should have shouted "Bengazi!" rucky Dec 2013 #117