Free Speech versus "Fire!" in a crowded theater

[eldirector]

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.

I dunno. Who runs out of a building when a "bomb scare" phone call is made? Oh yeah, pretty much everyone.

Yelling "fire" is so old-school.....

 

[ATOMonkey]

People trample each other in order to get something they want.

I bet that if you yelled fire in a crowded theatre, not a soul would stir except to tell you to shut up and sit down.

Actual fire would probably cause a panick though.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If a person of authority yelled fire or that there was a bomb, I could see that setting people off.

A lay person doing the same thing...I bet people would just think they're a wack job.

 

[eldirector]

If a person of authority yelled fire or that there was a bomb, I could see that setting people off.

A lay person doing the same thing...I bet people would just think they're a wack job.

Then why are entire schools, offices, buildings, and such cleared when a bomb threat is called in? I'd be willing to bet the caller is a wack job, but folks get in a panic.

Actually, the bomb scare phone call is a great example for this thread. Still "free speech", but very much intended to cause a panic.

 

[steveh_131]

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

I have to disagree with you here. I think that the point of this thread isn't that people should be allowed to do whatever they want and never be held responsible for the consequences.

The point is that action should be taken based on the consequences of someone's actions rather then the potential consequences. Criminalizing victimless actions has never been a fair way to handle things, and certainly has never been effective.

It's an important principle, not a lofty philosophical discussion with no basis in the real world.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Then why are entire schools, offices, buildings, and such cleared when a bomb threat is called in? I'd be willing to bet the caller is a wack job, but folks get in a panic.

Actually, the bomb scare phone call is a great example for this thread. Still "free speech", but very much intended to cause a panic.

I have been cleared out of 2 schools because of bomb threats and there was no panic.

Buildings are cleared as a matter of safe rather than sorry, but I would never call it panic.

We had the tornado sirens go off at work and people were told to take shelter immediately and no one even moved. In fact, most walked towards the doors to get a better look at the storm.

Maybe the people here are just a special breed of apathetic.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I say, do what you want, but if someone is hurt because of your actions, then you are responsible for their injury.

 

[rambone]

Then why are entire schools, offices, buildings, and such cleared when a bomb threat is called in? I'd be willing to bet the caller is a wack job, but folks get in a panic.

Actually, the bomb scare phone call is a great example for this thread. Still "free speech", but very much intended to cause a panic.

It is a good example.

I think litigation is still enough recourse/deterrent, rather than banning the word 'bomb.' What if I'm a bombardier and I want to talk about my job?

 

[CarmelHP]

I have to disagree with you here. I think that the point of this thread isn't that people should be allowed to do whatever they want and never be held responsible for the consequences.

The point is that action should be taken based on the consequences of someone's actions rather then the potential consequences. Criminalizing victimless actions has never been a fair way to handle things, and certainly has never been effective.

It's an important principle, not a lofty philosophical discussion with no basis in the real world.

It's not illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, let's get that straight. There's no prior restraint. In fact, if there actually is a fire, it's completely justified. If it's not justified, then you're held responsible for your reckless behavior. It's not victimless, just because the victims don't act exactly as you want or should expect them to does not make it victimless anymore than if one were to unload a revolver at a group of schoolchildren is victimless just because no one was hit.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If someone fires at a group of children, then the children should return fire. Fair is fair.

 

[cbseniour]

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights come with responsibility. You should not exercise you right if it will impenge on someones elses.
If you yell " FIRE" in a theater you are impenging on the rights of the other patrons to enjoy the movie in safety and quiet.
If you publish something that is libelous you are injuring another person and by extension denying them a right .
( of course if it is true it is not libel.)
The same can be said and illiustrated of all the guaranteed rights of the constitution. We should by all means defend our rights but lets not get to the point where my rights are more important than someone elses. After all we all have to live in this world.

 

[steveh_131]

It's not illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, let's get that straight. There's no prior restraint. In fact, if there actually is a fire, it's completely justified. If it's not justified, then you're held responsible for your reckless behavior.

It's not illegal. And it shouldn't be. That's the point.

It's not victimless, just because the victims don't act exactly as you want or should expect them to does not make it victimless anymore than if one were to unload a revolver at a group of schoolchildren is victimless just because no one was hit.

This is such an absurd comparison, and we've been over it a hundred times in so many other threads.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

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

Nobody, but it is the intent behind the comment. If you say something that you know will cause a panic in which people get hurt then you should be held responsible for what you say.


What some people want is to be able to say/do anything they want with no consequence.

 

[CarmelHP]

It's not illegal. And it shouldn't be. That's the point.

No, the point is that you can be held responsible for your behavior depending on the circumstances in which you engaged in that behavior. There is a clear and present danger of a panic in the example scenario.

This is such an absurd comparison, and we've been over it a hundred times in so many other threads.

No, it's not absurd, both have a high degree of danger to those in the path of your recklessness. A historic example of dozens of deaths resulting from the panic that ensued after shouting "fire" at a crowded party was provided previously. Just because harm does not always result from the reckless disregard for others does not make it victimless. To call it victimless is absurd.

 

[steveh_131]

No, it's not absurd, both have a high degree of danger to those in the path of your recklessness. A historic example of dozens of deaths resulting from the panic that ensued after shouting "fire" at a crowded party was provided previously. Just because harm does not always result from the reckless disregard for others does not make it victimless. To call it victimless is absurd.

Our actions have consequences in the real world. If you fire into a crowd of children, you will be damaging property and possibly people. You will also probably be considered a danger and be shot in a legitimate case of self-defense. These are the consequences that prevent people from shooting into a crowd of children. Not because there is a law against it.

Same goes for shouting "fire" in a theater. You are held liable for any damages that occur, and justly so. There is currently no law against it. How often do you hear about it happening? In the ONE case you have cited, do you think it would have been prevented by a nanny-state law? Please.

There are plenty of dangers involved with doing drugs, hiring prostitutes, etc.

These dangers are what prevent sensible people from participating in these activities, not silly laws and bans. If your actions cause harm to someone or something, you should be held responsible. If they don't, then you did nothing wrong and you should be left alone.

 

[edporch]

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.

EXACTLY.
This what I mean about taking RESPONSIBILITY for freedom of speech.
You couldn't have illustrated it better...

 

[CarmelHP]

Our actions have consequences in the real world. If you fire into a crowd of children, you will be damaging property and possibly people. You will also probably be considered a danger and be shot in a legitimate case of self-defense. These are the consequences that prevent people from shooting into a crowd of children. Not because there is a law against it.

Same goes for shouting "fire" in a theater. You are held liable for any damages that occur, and justly so. There is currently no law against it. How often do you hear about it happening? In the ONE case you have cited, do you think it would have been prevented by a nanny-state law? Please.

There are plenty of dangers involved with doing drugs, hiring prostitutes, etc.

These dangers are what prevent sensible people from participating in these activities, not silly laws and bans. If your actions cause harm to someone or something, you should be held responsible. If they don't, then you did nothing wrong and you should be left alone.

Both are reckless endangerment, if you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre without justification you could harm property and people so, ipso facto, it meets your requirement. Are you saying if one shoots at a group of schoolchildren, and damages only one's own property then it would be OK? Haven't hurt anyone, no victim, right?

 

[dross]

Words used to express ideas are protected. Words used to defraud, or cause someone to do harm, or to incite are not protected.

"Hey Rambone, if you kill that guy I'll pay you a million bucks."

That's speech, right? So conspiracy to commit murder laws are unconstitutional, too.

Yelling "Fire" is not illegal. Yelling "Fire," as a prank that can potentially cause people to hurt themselves is a criminal act.

This is a semantic argument. "Speech," in the first amendment doesn't mean "any spoken word." Just as it doesn't mean that to be protected you must have a podium, a set of notes, a pitcher of water and a boring PowerPoint presentation.

Maybe the "right to bear arms," means that chopping off the front legs of polar bears is protected by the Constitution.

Silly.

 

[steveh_131]

Both are reckless endangerment, if you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre without justification you could harm property and people so, ipso facto, it meets your requirement. Are you saying if one shoots at a group of schoolchildren, and damages only one's own property then it would be OK? Haven't hurt anyone, no victim, right?

Yes, if this absurd and impossible scenario ever happened, I would say yes. No victim, no crime.

 

[steveh_131]

Words used to express ideas are protected. Words used to defraud, or cause someone to do harm, or to incite are not protected.

"Hey Rambone, if you kill that guy I'll pay you a million bucks."

That's speech, right? So conspiracy to commit murder laws are unconstitutional, too.

Yelling "Fire" is not illegal. Yelling "Fire," as a prank that can potentially cause people to hurt themselves is a criminal act.

This is a semantic argument. "Speech," in the first amendment doesn't mean "any spoken word." Just as it doesn't mean that to be protected you must have a podium, a set of notes, a pitcher of water and a boring PowerPoint presentation.

Maybe the "right to bear arms," means that chopping off the front legs of polar bears is protected by the Constitution.

Silly.

I agree that this part of the constitution was not intended for this exact purpose.

Nevertheless, our rights are not limited to those that the constitution lays out. They exist apart from it, and should not be limited unless they infringe on the rights of others. Not because they MIGHT infringe on the rights of others.