4 ms·

> If you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you're arrested for the panic, not the fact you spoke, but for the fact you put people in potential danger. This analog

> If you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you're arrested for the panic, not the fact you spoke, but for the fact you put people in potential danger. This analogy was created in an attempt to outlaw people speaking against the draft. My understanding is that it was overturned and is no longer considered a relevant example on the test of free speech. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...

foldr 4y ago
I don’t think that’s relevant. The point is just that you really can’t shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre and use a free speech defense to escape responsibility for your actions. Various other scenarios may or may not have been found to be legally analogous to this one by various courts. Nonetheless, the example still serves to illustrate the limits of free speech. To put it another way, Brandenburg v. Ohio didn’t find that it actually is ok to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. Rather, it found that a particular instance of speech wasn’t analogous to that example.
- richbell 4y ago
  It is relevant if the courts later overturned the decision and it is now considered free speech. I get your point, it's just a bad example given the historical baggage.
  - foldr 4y ago
    AFAIK the courts did not find this. After all, they were not considering the case of someone who shouted ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. If someone actually did this and people died as a result (e.g. in a stampede), it seems highly unlikely that a free speech defense could be used.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > It is relevant if the courts later overturned the decision and it is now considered free speech. Since "it" is the draft stuff, not shouting fire, it's only mildly sometimes relevant.
  - semiquaver 4y ago
    The analogy itself is dicta: part of the decision’s explanation and commentary; not a statement of law or binding precedent. Therefore not something that can be overturned in the subsequent case.

foldr 4y ago

I don’t think that’s relevant. The point is just that you really can’t shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre and use a free speech defense to escape responsibility for your actions. Various other scenarios may or may not have been found to be legally analogous to this one by various courts. Nonetheless, the example still serves to illustrate the limits of free speech. To put it another way, Brandenburg v. Ohio didn’t find that it actually is ok to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. Rather, it found that a particular instance of speech wasn’t analogous to that example.

richbell 4y ago
It is relevant if the courts later overturned the decision and it is now considered free speech. I get your point, it's just a bad example given the historical baggage.
- foldr 4y ago
  AFAIK the courts did not find this. After all, they were not considering the case of someone who shouted ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. If someone actually did this and people died as a result (e.g. in a stampede), it seems highly unlikely that a free speech defense could be used.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > It is relevant if the courts later overturned the decision and it is now considered free speech. Since "it" is the draft stuff, not shouting fire, it's only mildly sometimes relevant.
- semiquaver 4y ago
  The analogy itself is dicta: part of the decision’s explanation and commentary; not a statement of law or binding precedent. Therefore not something that can be overturned in the subsequent case.