You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater

J

John/az2

New member
I keep hearing this and have a difficult time reconciling this with freedom of speech, because I keep hearing/reading this in the context that "because this is true" (<-according to the person saying it) we then have the ability and the moral responsibility to place restrictions upon all rights.

"Yes, she used a gun to subdue the perp, but we don't recommend this because things could have gone badly."

"We need to mandate trigger locks/safes because someone could shoot themselves."

"We need to run background checks because a criminal might get a gun."

"We need to silence political groups 60 days before elections because it could hurt the candidates"

I DO have the right to shout such things in a crowded theater. I also have the responsibility to face the consequences of my actions.

We try to enact "damage control" , and therefore punish someone for doing something that "could" have caused something undesirable to happen.

Free speech, firearm ownership, religious practices, property ownership, etc. all fall under this premise.

To me this is immoral and ethically bankrupt.

So don't tell me that I can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because I can.
 
I hate that analogy, because it has no validity and does not even begin to describe the nature of free speech and its restrictions.

You have every right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is, in fact, a fire.

You have no right to shout "fire" if there is none, but the reason for that has nothing to do with free speech rights, but with property rights.

As the owner, you'd be defrauding the paying audience by disrupting the performance.

As a patron, you'd be defrauding the owner and your fellow patrons, since the ticket price only entitles you to watch the show, not disturb it.

As a non-paying theater patron, you'd have no right to be there to begin with, and therefore no right to shout *anything*.
 
I will echo Bretts comment.

You can not shout fire in a crowded theater if it is not on fire.

You can not carry a weapon and shoot another person without justification.

You have an obligation to shout fire if the theater is on fire.

You have an obligation and a right to defend your life, and you should if it is threatened.

Guns are all that stand between citizens and their freedom. And politicians and their provocatuers will always work to take that freedom away.

Thank goodness politicians are all cowards.
 
You can not shout fire in a crowded theater if it is not on fire.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. Find the theater owner and ask his permission. If he says okay, you can shout "Fire!" to your heart's content.

It's very easy to confuse private property rights and free speech rights. Be careful. ;)

- Chris
 
I've used that analogy in the past.

I was HOPING that people would recognize that I meant it to mean that it's illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't a fire.

And actually, I contend that you don't have that RIGHT.

You have that ability, of course, but is an ability the same as a right? I contend that it is not.

Just as you have the ABILITY to murder someone, you don't have the RIGHT to murder someone, even if you contend that doing so is an exercise of your protected 1st Amendment religious beliefs...

I personally believe that the BEST description of what constitutes a "right" is summed thusly: "something to which one has a just claim; the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled."

I don't think it can possibly be contended that anyone has the "right" to shout fire in a crowded theater, fully knowning that there is no fire, and knowing that doing so has the liklihood of causing injury or death to others.

In this example, we have what can be referred to as the balancing of rights -- your "right" to shout fire vs. the "right" of someone else to be free of the threat of bodily injury or death.
 
The comment about not shouting "fire" only means that you can't get up and shout "fire" falsely and then escape liability/prosecution by saying that you have the right to speak freely. The speach itself is not what is proscribed, but rather emiting the speach in a place and manner that creates an unsafe condition. You can sit in your seat and quietly repeat "fire" to yourself until the guy in the row in front of you tells you to shut the hell up.

Another oft-used example is that you cannot stand on a street corner near a school and scream through a bullhorn. Reason being that you are disrupting a public school. No one is regulating or censoring the content of your speach - the officials who would stop you really would not give a rats patootie WHAT you were saying, only that you were saying it very loudly and interrupting a legitimate governmental function.

The reason that there are so many cases on 1st Amendment issues is that there are so many slippery slopes involved. It's impossible to draw any bright-line rules.
 
The analogy is just not fitting to me. The only way to equate the two would be to remove the ability to speak (or possibly even communicate) in some permanent manner just so that there is no possible way that anyone COULD shout "Fire!" Gun control is prior restraint, which is of course practically impossible when it comes to First Amendment issues. These examples are just not compatible.

Rick
 
Actually the illegality of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not exactly accurate. I challenge anyone to find a written law that states specifically it's a crime to "falsely shout fire in a crowded place." Or anything to that effect.

However, what you will find are many laws that may cover such an act, for example, manslaughter, if someone gets killed if a panic ensues, or inciting to riot. There are numerous other laws that could be used as well.

To me, this means that the free speech of the offender hasn't been made illegal, but the consequences of his reckless behavior. There's a difference.

If the anti-liberty supporters were to be honest and consistent and apply the same logic to the 2nd Amendment, then you would not make it illegal to own a gun. Instead it would be illegal to do something harmful with the gun. What a novel idea! Isn't that what most of us who support RKBA have been saying all along?

On the surface the shouting fire analogy may seem relevant but it's really not. It is a false analogy.
 
Actually the illegality of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not exactly accurate. I challenge anyone to find a written law that states specifically it's a crime to "falsely shout fire in a crowded place." Or anything to that effect.
Click to expand...

Actually - The phrase originates from a U.S. supreme Court decision, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). The actual quote is, "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. 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."

So the important elements would be that you cannot FALSELY shout fire if it will cause a PANIC and creates a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. So in essence, you can shout fire all you want even if there isn't a fire - if there is no one in the theatre and it doesn't cause a panic.

This case was because a man, Schenck, was distributing anti-gov't flyers and was thrown into jail for it. He sued saying it was his 1st amendment right to do so, but the Supreme Court maintained he did not have that right for the above reasons due to a war going on.

I agree that it is not a good analogy to restrict firearm ownership. Specifically because Justice Holmes is refering to words creating a clear and present danger not objects. However, I will strongly disagree on anyone who thinks he has the right to possibly cause the deaths of dozens of people simply because he thinks he can.
 
If someone uses this argument, respond like this:

"You are EXACTLY RIGHT!, and because of that we should not allow anyone to speak a single word in crowded theaters." :rolleyes:

If for some strange reason they don't understand your point. Say :
"You are also not allowed to drive you car down the sidewalk and run over pedestrians. We therefore should not allow anyone to drive."
 
You absolutely have the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, regardless of whether there is a fire or not. The catch is, you are RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. Funny, people don't talk much about responsibilities when trying to limit rights...
 
Ah...a pet peeve revisited.

You've all [I think] missed the point, that being:

You don't get gagged when you enter the theater.

IOW, don't ban certain firearms from civilian ownership because you think they might be "misused".
 
Ah...a pet peeve revisited.

You've all [I think] missed the point, that being:

You don't get gagged when you enter the theater.

IOW, don't ban certain firearms from civilian ownership because you think they might be "misused".
Click to expand...

Actually, that is exactly what we are saying. The excercise of the stated "right" is illegal if and only when it leads to harmful consequences.
 
John/az

"So don't tell me that I can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because I can."

Hmmm, I am curious. Have you ever considered shouting "Theater!" at a crowded fire?

:D
 
To my way of thinking the point is that free speech does not release you from responsibilities. Your rights are unlimited right up until they infringe upon someone elses rights. Rights are not absolute, you have to respect the rights of others.
 
Not-so-mute...

So noted; don't think your post was there when I posted my response, but I stand corrected nevertheless.

Glad to know someone else has come to the logical conclusion. :cool:
 
Okay, I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is NO prior restaint to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. No one from the government is implaniting chips in anyone's head that prevents them from doing this. If you do so negligently, expect to pay the piper, however.

The exact same standard should apply to firearms: no prior restraint (all the AW and Hi Cap bans and so forth should be thrown in the trash) and punishment for misuse.
 
If free speech in theaters were treated in the same way prior restraint laws affect firearms ownership; everyone would be issued a muzzle when they entered to prevent them from uttering the offending word "Fire!". Of course, this would also prevent them from shouting the offending word should an actual fire occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top