4 ms·
The "fire in a crowded theater" standard is considered a legal joke these days. It has been superseded since the 1960s by FAR more stringent tests on speech lim
by didgeoridoo 9y ago
The "fire in a crowded theater" standard is considered a legal joke these days. It has been superseded since the 1960s by FAR more stringent tests on speech limits. Expunge this saying from your vocabulary — it has zero relevance in modern case law.
- FabHK 9y agoGood to know. (As I said, I am no expert here, but (as I know from other areas) that does not prevent people from having an opinion...) Do I understand you correctly in saying "more stringent tests" that more types of speech (beyond that) are considered off limits today?
- didgeoridoo 9y agoPrecisely the opposite. "More stringent tests" mean that any law that tries to limit speech must pass an exceedingly high bar — higher than ever before. The "clear and present danger" test used by Oliver Wendell Holmes in his "crowded theater" opinion basically says that any speech that could cause dangerous effects could be outlawed. Modern 1st Amendment jurisprudence, by contrast, has evolved toward the "fighting words" standard, which basically limits restrictions on speech to outlawing "true threats"; e.g. me saying I'm going to kill you.
- rdtsc 9y agoOh that's interesting. First time I heard about. I keep always hearing about "fire in a crowded theater" in "free speech" arguments and discussion. So what's the new thing then?