Free Speech versus "Fire!" in a crowded theater

[rambone]

I've been wanting to have this discussion for some time.

I often hear people say that the act of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the one acceptable time when the 1st Amendment may be infringed. I say that it isn't. There are no acceptable infringements of the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
​

However, does this mean that there should be no recourse for those injured by the proverbial prankster? No, in my opinion, justice can still be found -- just not through creation of criminal laws.

To me, this entire matter is about property rights. The injured parties could file lawsuits, could they not? Reparations through the court system are perfectly acceptable to me and don't infringe on the 1st amendment. Damages could be reported, evidence brought forth, and liability could be assigned, if necessary. The property owner could claim damages for lost customers, and the injured person could make a case that his injury is the defendant's fault.

No Thought Police. Lawsuits make more sense to me than arresting/fining people for uttering a (growing) list of banned words in crowds. It provides a deterrent to the action without banning the action. It repairs damages instead of simply locking the person away. It obeys the constitution. Everybody wins.

Oh, and if there is no damage, there should be no lawsuit. The property owner should forfeit the prankster's ticket if necessary and ban him from the property. No need for anything further.

Another thing I would have to ask about a criminal law against yelling "Fire!" -- How enforceable is it? How are you going to find this guy who ran away with the crowd? Is it just a law to make us feel safe?

Lastly, since this is the most used and most convincing case against free speech... how much of a problem is this phenomenon? How many people in history have died from falsely yelling 'fire' in theaters? Has it ever happened? Its pretty weak if you ask me.

Is it worth infringing the 1st Amendment for a feel-good law, that can't be enforced, that nobody is sure would have ever applied to any real-life situation?

 

[Kutnupe14]

And what if the "injured party" is a "dead" party?

Further, if it's crowded, what about the owners loss in revenue? Could this not also be a form of intimidation if the person yelling "fire" is the owner of a competing movie house?
Isn't a person who does this also infringing of the public's right to assemble?

Better yet, let's change the premise. What if a guy, instead of saying "fire," he says "Allah Akbar.... bomb!" Does that make a difference? It's still words right?

 

[eldirector]

If the prankster's actions lead to loss of revenue, then possibly fined to replace the revenue and then banned from the property (eg: civil action).

If the prankster's actions lead to injury or loss of life, then jail sounds reasonable. Manslaughter if death was unintentional (I was just being funny), but murder if you WANTED to cause a stampede (Making people run is funny).

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reaping the rewards, or dealing with the consequences.

 

[rambone]

And what if the "injured party" is a "dead" party?

Then they'd be no less dead with or without a law banning words.

Further, if it's crowded, what about the owners loss in revenue? Could this not also be a form of intimidation if the person yelling "fire" is the owner of a competing movie house?
Isn't a person who does this also infringing of the public's right to assemble?

I addressed this in the OP. The property owner has a legitimate claim of lost revenue. Handle it in court.

Better yet, let's change the premise. What if a guy, instead of saying "fire," he says "Allah Akbar.... bomb!" Does that make a difference? It's still words right?

Same premise, same probability.

If the prankster's actions lead to injury or loss of life, then jail sounds reasonable. Manslaughter if death was unintentional (I was just being funny), but murder if you WANTED to cause a stampede (Making people run is funny).

Lets say he wanted to see people run. It does not follow that he wanted to see people die.

You could argue Manslaughter (I may not agree), but I think Murder really does not fit.

Is Walmart responsible for creating stampedes with their Black Friday sales? Just asking.

 

[phylodog]

I think the rights of everyone in the theater to enjoy a movie they paid to see in peace trumps the "right" of one inconsiderate moron's brilliant idea of yelling fire.

I think the people who wait all night in lines at Walmart can reasonably expect to experience a stampede and willingly place themselves into that position. A far cry from some idiot screaming fire in a theater.

I'm with El Director. If a person's unnecessary actions cause a loss of revenue, they should be liable for repaying the loss and if unable or unwilling to do so, they go to jail.

If a person's unnecessary actions create physical harm or death to another person they should be liable for repayment of all medical bills, loss of income and funeral arrangements if applicable and then go to jail.

 

[eldirector]

Seems like you have a chip on your should for this one, since we just get one comment in before you reply :-)

If my actions accidentally cause someone's death, it may be manslaughter. Regardless of what those actions are.

If you intentionally cause someone's death, then it may be murder. Pre-meditated if you have planned it for a while.

If your intention is to cause a panic, in hopes that someone would die, then your words could very easily be murderous. If you are in a skyscraper and yell "the building is on fire, the stairwells are blocked, we are all going to die! We have to jump for it!!!", and someone does, even though you KNEW it was a "joke", then you are a murderer.

Freedoms are not free. They come with responsibility.

 

[96firephoenix]

you will not find a law explicitly prohibiting people from yelling the word "fire" in a crowded theater.

you will however, find laws against inciting riots, causing a panicked stampede, doing something that directly results in GBH or death (if someone is harmed or killed in the stampede), etc...

you'll get similar results if you run down the street yelling "run for your lives" at the top of your lungs. you might not get the same number of people to go along with it, but if the 5-0 see it, you'll get arrested for the same thing.

 

[dross]

Let's take it a step farther. You tell someone:

"Here, put on this blindfold and walk ten steps forward and you'll win a million dollars."

Except that the person walks off a cliff and dies.

It's speech, right? So they should have checked it out. They should sue in civil court, right?

Seriously, avoid idiocy when you can. Your dogma involves discussions of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Principle taken too far is pizza and bongs in the freshman dorm with the other geeks discussing Ayn Rand and sword and sorcery role playing.

Rambone, I hope you're in your twenties. If you're thirty, it's time now. Join the world of the serious.

 

[right winger]

I say jailed and flogged

 

[firehawk1]

Then they'd be no less dead with or without a law banning words.

Come on now rambone... we're talking DEAD here. Taking someone to court AFTER THE FACT will not return the loved one, they are gone forever. So you win a judgement for a bizillion dollars, the person is STILL dead. But hey, you're RICH so all's good, and the perpetrator paid the price.

There are ramifications and meaning to "words". Do you actually believe the Founding Fathers would agree with placing someone in harm while expressing your 1st Ammendment "right"? I'm sorry, I just can't.

We're back to, your rights END where MINE begin. NO ONE has a 'right" to place me or anyone else's life in jeopardy, and claim it's covered free speech under the 1st Ammendment.



I can't vote in your poll. I'd fine them AND jail them.

 

[zenbruno]

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is an interesting and relevant Wikipedia link on the OP's topic.

Personally, I have to generally agree with Dross' take on the issue, as framed by the OP. I'm sure that there's a cogent debate to be had about the first-amendment, but I don't think that this thread has so far found it.

 

[lashicoN]

And what if the "injured party" is a "dead" party?

Further, if it's crowded, what about the owners loss in revenue? Could this not also be a form of intimidation if the person yelling "fire" is the owner of a competing movie house?
Isn't a person who does this also infringing of the public's right to assemble?

Better yet, let's change the premise. What if a guy, instead of saying "fire," he says "Allah Akbar.... bomb!" Does that make a difference? It's still words right?

THIS! What if a secret agent, working for a local competing movie theater who had enough vested interest in the theater he works for to actually scream "FIRE!" in the competitors movie theater for the purpose of murdering their customers and getting away with it cause of the 1st Amendment.



I don't think the issue is yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I've never seen that happen and I went to a lot of movies in my teens. I don't know anyone who has been in a theater where someone yelled "fire". I think everyone knows not to do it, and I don't really think there would be any difference if it was legal.

I think the real issue is that there are idiots who try to dream up infringements on our rights, so they spout the most ridiculous "what ifs" so that we can't be truly free. We almost have free speech, but there are a few words we can say. Would life end on Earth if we could say those few words? Would even a single life end because those words were spoken? I don't care, the First Amendment is clear that we have the right to unabridged Free Speech, just like our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stipulations on either are obviously unconstitutional and anyone who supports those laws either doesn't understand the Bill of Rights, or doesn't agree with it.

 

[phylodog]

So those in prison for murder should have a right to possess firearms?

 

[Rayne]

My oh My... Rambone and my discussion has taken on a whole new life.

 

[zenbruno]

Lastly, since this is the most used and most convincing case against free speech... how much of a problem is this phenomenon? How many people in history have died from falsely yelling 'fire' in theaters? Has it ever happened? Its pretty weak if you ask me.

Is it worth infringing the 1st Amendment for a feel-good law, that can't be enforced, that nobody is sure would have ever applied to any real-life situation?

Actually, yes. Seventy-three people died at the Italian Hall in Calumet, Michigan in 1913.

 

[firehawk1]

I don't care, the First Amendment is clear that we have the right to unabridged Free Speech, just like our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stipulations on either are obviously unconstitutional and anyone who supports those laws either doesn't understand the Bill of Rights, or doesn't agree with it.

So a raving lunatic like Charles Manson should be allowed to own firearms? Sorry but I'm good with types like that NOT being allowed to own them. But hey, I guess I could sue them for damages for shooting my wife and killing her huh? By God THAT will make me feel better.

I believe it isn't a matter of understanding the Bill of Rights, it's understanding the context in which they were written. IMO THAT is most directed towards political speech. Not someone wishing to simply run their mouth.

 

[Sylvain]

You forgot "The prankster is an idiot".

Its not because you have the right to say anything (well almost anthing in the US) you want that you should.
If you think you can yell "fire" and that any action against you for doing so is an infridgement on your 1st amendment rights then you may lie in court and have inoccents sentenced to jail because the 1st amendment gives you the right to say anything you want (truth or lies).

 

[96firephoenix]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'd like to point out that it says "CONGRESS." it doesn't say jack about the SCOTUS or states.

 

[UncleMike]

So a raving lunatic like Charles Manson should be allowed to own firearms? Sorry but I'm good with types like that NOT being allowed to own them. But hey, I guess I could sue them for damages for shooting my wife and killing her huh? By God THAT will make me feel better.

I believe it isn't a matter of understanding the Bill of Rights, it's understanding the context in which they were written. IMO THAT is most directed towards political speech. Not someone wishing to simply run their mouth.

We have a winner!!!

 

[CarmelHP]

INDIANA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1.​

Bill of Rights.​

Section 9. No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.