Free Speech versus "Fire!" in a crowded theater

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't know why you guys allow yourselves to be baited by this guy. He thinks it's OK to inject someone with a deadly virus without so much as a hello; to have sex with children; to steal other people's property; and now to yell fire in a crowded theatre. He is unable to name one law he thinks is right. And yet people are still shocked.

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.

I tried to rep you, but it won't let me. Damn I should be able to rep you as often as I like.

There are people that are just plain stupid. Then there are people that are stuck on stupid. Some people are both. I think we know where our resident tweaker lies.

...

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.

Wrong. We have 9 guys and dolls in black dresses that decide what is and isn't constitutional. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand our Constitution or form of government.

 

[Phil502]

The first 3 out of 4.

 

[rambone]

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...

For the sake of discussion, I would like someone to post the applicable laws that might be applied in the event of the hypothetical scenario.

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.

See, that seems a little silly. I bet I could actual people doing that on YouTube if I tried. I don't think they should be arrested.

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.

I apply the No Victim, No Crime principle. But if it can be proven in court that there was intent, and a jury agrees, then reparations should be made.

I don't think there needs to be laws & regulations created about playing Pin The Tail on the Donkey: Grand Canyon Edition.

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

What if you tell a person to go home and set his house on fire with his family inside? Now the free speech dude is guilty of multiple homicides?

We can't take this too far in this direction either. I favor no laws restricting the freedom of speech.

Join the world of the serious.

Hey, this is serious. If we can talk about the legitimacy/effectiveness of gun control laws, why not discuss the same for speech control laws? Would a law of this sort save lives? Do you honestly think that the mechanism that holds people back from telling their friends to jump off a cliff is some law against it?

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

Thank you. I've always wondered.

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

Due process suspends that right. Serving the sentence should restore it.

 

[Rayne]

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.

^^^^^^

I have to agree with Rambone to a certain extent here. If government can censor words like fire for fear of it causing a panic in a crowded public area, then it can also censor the word dog because there are people who have Cynophobia (fear of dogs). We would hate to have peopel paniced because we were talking about walking our dogs the other night and how lovely an evening it was. Where will the censorship stop?

On the other hand, responsibility for your actions and your rights have to be balanced with the rights of other people. Whether it be to sit peacefully enjoying an evening of mindless humor on a theater screen or enjoying a peaceful walk around the neighborhood with their dog.

This world has become all about "ME" "MY" and "MINE". Common courtesy is not common anymore. If we take responsibility for our actions more than we will have less government trying to make us be responsible. Just my if it's even worth that.

 

[96firephoenix]

I have to agree with Rambone to a certain extent here. If government can censor words like fire for fear of it causing a panic in a crowded public area, then it can also censor the word dog because there are people who have Cynophobia (fear of dogs). We would hate to have people panicked because we were talking about walking our dogs the other night and how lovely an evening it was. Where will the censorship stop?

compare the percentage of the general public that is afraid of dogs to the percentage that is afraid of being trapped in a crowded theatre, trampled, then burned alive alongside 50+ other people.

I think you'll find that a larger percentage fears the latter, and lets be reasonable, the government always does what is best for the majority.

 

[rambone]

I don't know why you guys allow yourselves to be baited by this guy. He thinks it's OK to inject someone with a deadly virus without so much as a hello; to have sex with children; to steal other people's property; and now to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

I should be the one throwing up my hands. WTF are you talking about?

He is unable to name one law he thinks is right. And yet people are still shocked.

Murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud, and property violations like trespassing.

Wrong. We have 9 guys and dolls in black dresses that decide what is and isn't constitutional. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand our Constitution or form of government.

The judges can progressively reinterpret all of my rights out of existence. I will never be "Wrong" to argue in favor of Liberty.

There are people that are just plain stupid. Then there are people that are stuck on stupid. Some people are both. I think we know where our resident tweaker lies.

Maybe you should put me back on your butthurt block list, WhimperFi.

 

[rambone]

I have to agree with Rambone to a certain extent here. If government can censor words like fire for fear of it causing a panic in a crowded public area, then it can also censor the word dog because there are people who have Cynophobia (fear of dogs). We would hate to have peopel paniced because we were talking about walking our dogs the other night and how lovely an evening it was. Where will the censorship stop?

On a similar tangent, should it be illegal to yell "COP" in a crowded dormatory?

 

[88GT]

"Shall make no law" is just as absolute as "shall not be infringed." You can't have it both ways.

But then there are no actual laws against yelling "fire" either. As such, I'm not really sure what the point of the thread is.

 

[Rayne]

On a similar tangent, should it be illegal to yell "COP" in a crowded dormatory?

Well of course because we all know nothing illegal is ever going on in a dormatory, or so my kids told me. We need a smiley with blinders on!

 

[Rayne]

"Shall make no law" is just as absolute as "shall not be infringed." You can't have it both ways.

But then there are no actual laws against yelling "fire" either. As such, I'm not really sure what the point of the thread is.

The point was Rambone and I were discussing the 1st ammendment right of free speech vs. ones responsibilty of how he/she/you/me excercises that right and how it might infringe on other's right too. It actually started in another thread and Rambone started this thread instead of us thread jacking that one anymore than we already had.

 

[rambone]

"Shall make no law" is just as absolute as "shall not be infringed." You can't have it both ways.

That's what I'm talking about.

I actually think that the 1st amendment is the most important, and I'm fine with being the guy who defends it to a fault.

Just like 2nd Amendment nuts who believe they should get to own machine guns without a permit.

But then there are no actual laws against yelling "fire" either. As such, I'm not really sure what the point of the thread is.

The point, LOL, good question.

I wanted to trade opinions about constitutional reparations for damages, and see where everyone stands on the subject. I hear it often enough that I felt it was worth discussing. I've been intending to start this topic for a while.

Also I was curious what the actual laws are. And if there actually are no applicable laws on the books, I wanted to ask people why there aren't more stampeded babies in theaters.

 

[lashicoN]

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

If they are in prison for murder? Obviously no, they're in prison...for murder. If they are a citizen who has served time and for whatever reason was relased from prison back into the public? Yes.

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.

Is Charles Manson a free man? If he his, sure, he ought to be able to go out and buy whatever he wants to protect himself.

I'm not sure if we're on the same wavelength here. Every human on Earth is born with the right to keep themselves alive (self defense, by any means) as well as the right to speak freely. There are rights you already have. Our Bill of Rights is a list of things our government isn't allowed to touch. The people who wrote it up already knew we had the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is simply a law forbidding the GOVERNMENT to infringe on our (already existing) right to keep and bear arms. The First Amendment is the same. The First Amendment is simply a law forbidding the GOVERNMENT to abridge our (already existing) freedom of speech. You are born with the right to run your mouth, the Bill of Rights is supposed to keep the government from shutting you up. It isn't supposed to make you feel as though the document, or the Federal Government grant you either right, they are natural rights of human beings.

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

I think that's because Congress makes the laws, not the SCOTUS, and the Bill of Rights actually does have something to say about States.

Wrong. We have 9 guys and dolls in black dresses that decide what is and isn't constitutional. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand our Constitution or form of government.

Sure, but "shall not be infringed" and "unabridged" are pretty straight forward and don't need any deciding by the Supreme Court, you know? Prohibition? Sure, Supreme Court, have at it. Mandated health insurance? Argue it out of existence. But to say that the Supreme Court has to pick apart the 1st or 2nd Amendment is not necessary. Both Amendments are extremely easy to understand.

 

[96firephoenix]

I think that's because Congress makes the laws, not the SCOTUS, and the Bill of Rights actually does have something to say about States.

cuz the SCOTUS never gets used to make **** up.

namely the whole Roe v Wade decision, making it legal to have an abortion under the "emanations of the penumbra of the 4th amendment."

granted that is just making **** up based on something that is already there, but its still making **** up.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I put down choice number 2, a fine. Like the Fighting Word Doctrine, there are certain words that are designed to elicit a negative response. We also have libel and harassment laws to protect people from people who like to wield words like a weapon.

"... strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[Bunnykid68]

If there is no injured party, then there should be no charges. But if someone were to yell fire there most certainy would be injured parties, either physically or monetarilly,

 

[E5RANGER375]

i think freedom of speech protects ideas and opinions. not malicious attempts to cause unwarranted harm to innocent people. that being said, i dont think its a jailable offense. i think they should just get their ass beat, and banned from the property. i wish more people werent afraid to get their hands dirty now days. chivalry is dead.

 

[edporch]

Freedom of speech has responsibility associated with it.
This idea that you should be able to say whatever you want, and NEVER be held accountable under ANY circumstances is a more recent societal development.

The yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is NO fire is a PRIME illustration.
Have we lost all common sense to say that if homebody does this, and people are hurt or killed it's OK because the person who yelled "fire!" has freeedom of speech?

There have even been laws against Provocation on the books for many years for example.

Or for example if somebody has an attack dog, and yells "sick 'em" for fun and it attacks you, it's OK because the owner has freedom of speech and it's the dogs fault for obeying his master?

We've lost too much common sense lately...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Who jumps up and runs out of a room just because someone yells fire?

We have alarms for more serious stuff than fire, and everyone always just assumes it's some kind of drill unless there is a catastrophe unfolding before their eyes, in which case, the alarm is kind of pointless.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Who jumps up and runs out of a room just because someone yells fire?

We have alarms for more serious stuff than fire, and everyone always just assumes it's some kind of drill unless there is a catastrophe unfolding before their eyes, in which case, the alarm is kind of pointless.

who tramples people to death to get into a store for a sale on a toy? oh thats right, stupid people in this country thats who.

 

[rambone]

Or for example if somebody has an attack dog, and yells "sick 'em" for fun and it attacks you, it's OK because the owner has freedom of speech and it's the dogs fault for obeying his master?

There should be no law against saying "sick'em."

But if someone gets injured they should sue the dog owner. Same thing I said about the OP.