5 ms·

"Free speech" is not "free beer." Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free. As an American, I h

"Free speech" is not "free beer." Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free. As an American, I have the right to bear arms (ok the constitution actually says not to infringe on "a well-regulated militia" but bear with me), but not the right to spray automatic gunfire wherever I please. I disagree with your assertion that "our society doesn't view free speech as a consistent principle." Of course we do. Free expression is a staple of Western civilization, and shows us how far we have come from mandated religion and the sanctity of the nobility. However, free expression can be damaging in certain circumstances. It is a testament to the strength of our civilization and our values that we find ways to mitigate the harm from certain kinds of expression, rather than scrapping the 1st Amendment altogether. It lasted over 200 years, why not 200 more?

sevenless 10y ago
It's ironic when people use this quote to justify banning "harmful speech", not knowing it was an excuse for jailing peaceful protesters under the police-state 1918 Sedition Act. 'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater' is a phrase from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft was not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Holmes Jr's opinion was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- makomk 10y ago
  And of course, it was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in order to protect the Ku Klux Klan and their ability to burn crosses, a symbol they used to threaten blacks who stepped out of line with lynching. Anyone who claims that freedom of speech somehow protected the powerless in the US is full of shit.
- leesalminen 10y ago
  Thank you! I think most are missing the context of the quote. My high school history textbook had this direct quote, mentioned it was a Supreme Court case, but did not discuss the case itself. Funny how that works.
good_sir_ant 10y ago
I understand your viewpoint and from a moral perpective, I agree with it. But how can you assert the US, or western civilization as a whole, is consistent in it's protection of freedom of speech? Your first sentence illustrates that example perfectly. Personally, I think shouting 'fire' in a theater should be 'free and legal' for a few key reasons. First, it allows the morality of individuals in a society, not the morality of a few in power, to be the consequences of another's action. Second, if a bigot refuses service, shout's slurs, or yells 'fire' in a theater, it may hurt my feelings, but you bet your ass I want that information. By silencing people whose morals i disagree with, you don't change their morality. You only shield it from me, so now I don't know about it.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  You are flat wrong. If you shout fire in a crowded theater (in which there is no fire), and the crowd pushes and shoves to race to the exit (if it can happen at a Walmart on Black Friday it can happen in a theater where people don't want to burn to death), and people get injured or even killed, forget about morals, you could be liable for manslaughter.
  - nileshtrivedi 10y ago
    By banning shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, you also prevent people from warning you when there IS fire. Now you've created perverse incentives. I suspect there might be a fire, but will not speak up until it is too late. Bad speech can be countered by MORE speech. Ban on speech cannot.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      facepalm Did you honestly believe I meant to say that people should not be warned about an actual fire?
      - nileshtrivedi 10y ago
        No, you didn't mean it. I'm saying that there is a trade-off involved in banning any speech. suspect is the key word.
rmc 10y ago
> Free expression is a staple of Western civilization And yet, so many Western countries disagree about what it actually means and have different laws. There's differences in places and time. Cinema and movies weren't covered by 1st Amendment for decades in the USA.
- talmand 10y ago
  I require an example of this claim.
  - rmc 10y ago
    Differences in free speech law geographically? France & Germany are a western countries, have a constitutional protection of free speech, and ban Holocaust denial. The USA is a western country, has a constitutional protection of free speech, and Holocause denial is legal. France, USA and Germany disagree if "banning Holocaust denial" counts as interfering with free speech. For cinema in the USA, a 9-0 Supreme Court case in 1915 found that movies weren't covered by the First Amendment. That was overturned in 1952 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson )
    - talmand 10y ago
      Thank you, exactly what I wanted.
rmc 10y ago
> Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free. So if speech is harmful it can be banned? That's an interesting new exemption.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  A very interesting, very old exemption. Its been around for generations, and is pretty much the entire topic around all issues of what is allowable and what is not.
  - rmc 10y ago
    So Holocaust denial should be banned because it's harmful?
    - Tepix 10y ago
      That's the law in Germany.
      - talmand 10y ago
        Which is a bad law, it simply opens the door for banning other "harmful" speech that somebody gets to decide for everybody else. It's the old shameful joke that no one reads history so they keep repeating it.
        rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        The legacy of Nazi Germany is a national shame. Millions of people cannot be un-murdered. It could have also resulted in much worse conditions for Germans and national sovereignty (like America's domination of Japan's postwar constitution). Banning holocaust denial is the national equivalent of recoiling one's hand after touching a hot stove. Most Germans really, really do not want to go back there.
        10y ago
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
I don't see why you think that one shouldn't be able to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and be prosecuted accordingly for inciting a riot and damage to the property if such were the case (but not for the speech itself). The problem with your position, is since we aren't dealing with 'what did happen' but with 'what could have happened' it becomes an ambiguous and potentially abusive provision - highly subjective to personal biases.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  But it is a position that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. We have building codes because shoddy construction practices could lead to a fire. We have vaccination requirements because a lack of them could lead to an outbreak. These are all laws meant to protect us from each other. I suppose you could argue with any of these on principle, but it's a pretty standard part of our social contract now. I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    > But it is a bias that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. Yes - but we also don't have an amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law abridging my right to drive fast" Preservation of free-speech is specially important in a way that the speed-limit on the highway is not. So I would say these aren't analogous applications of bias. > I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities. You could also go further e.g. "I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. Anti-vaccination speech should be outlawed, the practicants of such speech are a menace to public health, their children and others children." Putting speech into the category of acceptable bias without effect, is a dangerous path..
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
We're fine with free speech as long as it doesn't threaten the status quo. As soon as you get - e.g. - Snowden or Manning, the speech suddenly stops being free (of consequences) even though it's in the public interest. We're certainly not fine with free politics. Politics currently is still stuck in a medieval mode where it's entirely about about profit and power, not representation. The establishment in most countries will fight to the death to keep it that way.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I would rather live in a western democracy where speech is considered free until it is curbed, instead of a Muslim theocracy or Asian dictatorship where speech is forbidden until it is permitted.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Not only was the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing a quote from an oppressive anti-free-speech decision that has since been overturned, it was dicta that was neither citing nor setting precedent and has never been an accepted application of first amendment law.

sevenless 10y ago

It's ironic when people use this quote to justify banning "harmful speech", not knowing it was an excuse for jailing peaceful protesters under the police-state 1918 Sedition Act. 'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater' is a phrase from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft was not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Holmes Jr's opinion was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
makomk 10y ago
And of course, it was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in order to protect the Ku Klux Klan and their ability to burn crosses, a symbol they used to threaten blacks who stepped out of line with lynching. Anyone who claims that freedom of speech somehow protected the powerless in the US is full of shit.
leesalminen 10y ago
Thank you! I think most are missing the context of the quote. My high school history textbook had this direct quote, mentioned it was a Supreme Court case, but did not discuss the case itself. Funny how that works.

good_sir_ant 10y ago

I understand your viewpoint and from a moral perpective, I agree with it. But how can you assert the US, or western civilization as a whole, is consistent in it's protection of freedom of speech? Your first sentence illustrates that example perfectly. Personally, I think shouting 'fire' in a theater should be 'free and legal' for a few key reasons. First, it allows the morality of individuals in a society, not the morality of a few in power, to be the consequences of another's action. Second, if a bigot refuses service, shout's slurs, or yells 'fire' in a theater, it may hurt my feelings, but you bet your ass I want that information. By silencing people whose morals i disagree with, you don't change their morality. You only shield it from me, so now I don't know about it.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
You are flat wrong. If you shout fire in a crowded theater (in which there is no fire), and the crowd pushes and shoves to race to the exit (if it can happen at a Walmart on Black Friday it can happen in a theater where people don't want to burn to death), and people get injured or even killed, forget about morals, you could be liable for manslaughter.
- nileshtrivedi 10y ago
  By banning shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, you also prevent people from warning you when there IS fire. Now you've created perverse incentives. I suspect there might be a fire, but will not speak up until it is too late. Bad speech can be countered by MORE speech. Ban on speech cannot.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    facepalm Did you honestly believe I meant to say that people should not be warned about an actual fire?
    - nileshtrivedi 10y ago
      No, you didn't mean it. I'm saying that there is a trade-off involved in banning any speech. suspect is the key word.

rmc 10y ago

> Free expression is a staple of Western civilization And yet, so many Western countries disagree about what it actually means and have different laws. There's differences in places and time. Cinema and movies weren't covered by 1st Amendment for decades in the USA.

talmand 10y ago
I require an example of this claim.
- rmc 10y ago
  Differences in free speech law geographically? France & Germany are a western countries, have a constitutional protection of free speech, and ban Holocaust denial. The USA is a western country, has a constitutional protection of free speech, and Holocause denial is legal. France, USA and Germany disagree if "banning Holocaust denial" counts as interfering with free speech. For cinema in the USA, a 9-0 Supreme Court case in 1915 found that movies weren't covered by the First Amendment. That was overturned in 1952 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc._v._Wilson )
  - talmand 10y ago
    Thank you, exactly what I wanted.

rmc 10y ago

> Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has been widely accepted as harmful speech and as such is not free. So if speech is harmful it can be banned? That's an interesting new exemption.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
A very interesting, very old exemption. Its been around for generations, and is pretty much the entire topic around all issues of what is allowable and what is not.
- rmc 10y ago
  So Holocaust denial should be banned because it's harmful?
  - Tepix 10y ago
    That's the law in Germany.
    - talmand 10y ago
      Which is a bad law, it simply opens the door for banning other "harmful" speech that somebody gets to decide for everybody else. It's the old shameful joke that no one reads history so they keep repeating it.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        The legacy of Nazi Germany is a national shame. Millions of people cannot be un-murdered. It could have also resulted in much worse conditions for Germans and national sovereignty (like America's domination of Japan's postwar constitution). Banning holocaust denial is the national equivalent of recoiling one's hand after touching a hot stove. Most Germans really, really do not want to go back there.
        10y ago

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

I don't see why you think that one shouldn't be able to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, and be prosecuted accordingly for inciting a riot and damage to the property if such were the case (but not for the speech itself). The problem with your position, is since we aren't dealing with 'what did happen' but with 'what could have happened' it becomes an ambiguous and potentially abusive provision - highly subjective to personal biases.

stinkytaco 10y ago
But it is a position that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. We have building codes because shoddy construction practices could lead to a fire. We have vaccination requirements because a lack of them could lead to an outbreak. These are all laws meant to protect us from each other. I suppose you could argue with any of these on principle, but it's a pretty standard part of our social contract now. I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > But it is a bias that we apply all the time in a complex society. We have speed limits which we enforce because higher speeds could lead to an accident. Yes - but we also don't have an amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law abridging my right to drive fast" Preservation of free-speech is specially important in a way that the speed-limit on the highway is not. So I would say these aren't analogous applications of bias. > I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. We have to own cars to buy groceries, go to work and raise our kids because neighborhood grocery stores and schools are no more. We can't all be expected to be experts on HVAC and electrical because we've spent the totality of our existence in highly specialized training for whatever it is we do. We live in an incredibly close quarters society, and history has shown us that vaccinations are almost a must. Making laws based on what could happen just seems like common sense given these realities. You could also go further e.g. "I would personally argue that the society we live in has reached a level where we are incapable of being fully informed about all the risks, requirements and possibilities. Anti-vaccination speech should be outlawed, the practicants of such speech are a menace to public health, their children and others children." Putting speech into the category of acceptable bias without effect, is a dangerous path..

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

We're fine with free speech as long as it doesn't threaten the status quo. As soon as you get - e.g. - Snowden or Manning, the speech suddenly stops being free (of consequences) even though it's in the public interest. We're certainly not fine with free politics. Politics currently is still stuck in a medieval mode where it's entirely about about profit and power, not representation. The establishment in most countries will fight to the death to keep it that way.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I would rather live in a western democracy where speech is considered free until it is curbed, instead of a Muslim theocracy or Asian dictatorship where speech is forbidden until it is permitted.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Not only was the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing a quote from an oppressive anti-free-speech decision that has since been overturned, it was dicta that was neither citing nor setting precedent and has never been an accepted application of first amendment law.