4 ms·

Shouting fire in a theater isn't an extreme case if you think about it. When was the last time you heard of a stampede in a crowded theater when someone shouted

Shouting fire in a theater isn't an extreme case if you think about it. When was the last time you heard of a stampede in a crowded theater when someone shouted fire and there was none? I've never heard of it. Who would take off running? Would you take off running because someone else is? Honestly. The case this phrase originated from is overpraised.

mc32 12y ago
Basically, one can imagine, one would not want someone to invoke panic into others frivolously when it has potential to cause physical harm. Another example would be shouting "She's got a gun, arhhhh!" in a crowded plazza while setting off some firecrackers.
- rwmj 12y ago
  The firecrackers aren't speech.
  - pluma 12y ago
    What if instead you have an accomplice who's really good at beatboxing?
  - mc32 12y ago
    One could argue that "art isn't speech" as well. It's expression none the less.
- evan_ 12y ago
  Or yelling "I have Ebola" on an airplane.
Crito 12y ago
The case the phrase is from was about placing limitations on blatantly political speech. It was a truly reprehensible decision. "A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States From it's very inception, that phrase has been used to justify the restriction of political speech. Nothing has changed since 1917, people still use it to argue against political speech to this day.
- lukifer 12y ago
  I did not know this. Thanks for sharing.
drcube 12y ago
Is it even illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? This isn't 1900. There are accessible, well-lit exit routes in every theater I've been in. Not to mention fire suppression systems, alarms, and the fact that you'd most likely see a fire before it was time to panic.
- mc32 12y ago
  Perhaps this does not happen much in the US. However, there are "discotheque" fires [1] which harm numerous people throughout the world. Typically overcrowded with locked exit doors. It's a sad thing, but it happens. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires
- pessimizer 12y ago
  No. It was an example of speech that could have terrible consequences, just like anti-war speech. edit: You're overestimating the wisdom of crowds and the care of theater owners. Spraying mace in a crowded club led to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_E2_nightclub_stampede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_E2_nightclub_stampede Fear that the Who would start playing early caused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster We should probably add 'doing a sound check' to 'shouting fire in a crowded theater.'
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 12y ago
Don't be so literal-minded. If you have been following the news you might have noticed some deliberate Ebola hoaxes in the last week, where a man on an aeroplane and another on a bus shouted out they had Ebola and threatened to deliberately infect other passengers and the bus driver, respectively. The fact that nobody was actually hurt in these two incidents doesn't alter the deontological basis for a rule against such behavior.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Is 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' supposed to be figurative now? It used to be offered as the archetypical example. >The fact that nobody was actually hurt in these two incidents doesn't alter the deontological basis for a rule against such behavior. Then what possibly could? Hegel's ghost?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Reasoning by analogy is the norm in the American common-law system. If you were to maliciously cause some sort of dangerous stampede at, say, a sporting event, you would not be able to get off the hook by arguing that you were not in a theater. Once more, I urge people to consider the difference between civil and common law systems. A lot of people seem to assume the standards of one apply to the other. Then what possibly could? Hegel's ghost? The improbability of anyone being hurt. If you stand in the middle of a public park and yell 'the sky is falling!!' nobody will take you very seriously, but even if they did and decided that it was necessary to run indoors the probability of a stampede occurring is vanishingly low. But maliciously causing panic in an enclosed space significantly elevates the risk of injury to others, because the more panicked people are, the more irrationally and dangerously they may act, a phenomenon for which we have abundant evidence.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      Shouting in a crowded theater is not an analogy, it's a benchmark. This seems obvious to me - if it is an analogy, then what does the theater represent? What it says is that some line has to be set, and this concrete situation described is something that obviously should fall on the other side of the line. (Therefore, people should be imprisoned for speaking out against the war Q.E.D.)

mc32 12y ago

Basically, one can imagine, one would not want someone to invoke panic into others frivolously when it has potential to cause physical harm. Another example would be shouting "She's got a gun, arhhhh!" in a crowded plazza while setting off some firecrackers.

rwmj 12y ago
The firecrackers aren't speech.
- pluma 12y ago
  What if instead you have an accomplice who's really good at beatboxing?
- mc32 12y ago
  One could argue that "art isn't speech" as well. It's expression none the less.
evan_ 12y ago
Or yelling "I have Ebola" on an airplane.

Crito 12y ago

The case the phrase is from was about placing limitations on blatantly political speech. It was a truly reprehensible decision. "A unanimous Supreme Court, in a famous opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed leaflets to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States From it's very inception, that phrase has been used to justify the restriction of political speech. Nothing has changed since 1917, people still use it to argue against political speech to this day.

lukifer 12y ago
I did not know this. Thanks for sharing.

drcube 12y ago

Is it even illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater? This isn't 1900. There are accessible, well-lit exit routes in every theater I've been in. Not to mention fire suppression systems, alarms, and the fact that you'd most likely see a fire before it was time to panic.

mc32 12y ago
Perhaps this does not happen much in the US. However, there are "discotheque" fires [1] which harm numerous people throughout the world. Typically overcrowded with locked exit doors. It's a sad thing, but it happens. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires
pessimizer 12y ago
No. It was an example of speech that could have terrible consequences, just like anti-war speech. edit: You're overestimating the wisdom of crowds and the care of theater owners. Spraying mace in a crowded club led to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_E2_nightclub_stampede https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_E2_nightclub_stampede Fear that the Who would start playing early caused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster We should probably add 'doing a sound check' to 'shouting fire in a crowded theater.'
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 12y ago

Don't be so literal-minded. If you have been following the news you might have noticed some deliberate Ebola hoaxes in the last week, where a man on an aeroplane and another on a bus shouted out they had Ebola and threatened to deliberately infect other passengers and the bus driver, respectively. The fact that nobody was actually hurt in these two incidents doesn't alter the deontological basis for a rule against such behavior.

pessimizer 12y ago
Is 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' supposed to be figurative now? It used to be offered as the archetypical example. >The fact that nobody was actually hurt in these two incidents doesn't alter the deontological basis for a rule against such behavior. Then what possibly could? Hegel's ghost?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Reasoning by analogy is the norm in the American common-law system. If you were to maliciously cause some sort of dangerous stampede at, say, a sporting event, you would not be able to get off the hook by arguing that you were not in a theater. Once more, I urge people to consider the difference between civil and common law systems. A lot of people seem to assume the standards of one apply to the other. Then what possibly could? Hegel's ghost? The improbability of anyone being hurt. If you stand in the middle of a public park and yell 'the sky is falling!!' nobody will take you very seriously, but even if they did and decided that it was necessary to run indoors the probability of a stampede occurring is vanishingly low. But maliciously causing panic in an enclosed space significantly elevates the risk of injury to others, because the more panicked people are, the more irrationally and dangerously they may act, a phenomenon for which we have abundant evidence.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    Shouting in a crowded theater is not an analogy, it's a benchmark. This seems obvious to me - if it is an analogy, then what does the theater represent? What it says is that some line has to be set, and this concrete situation described is something that obviously should fall on the other side of the line. (Therefore, people should be imprisoned for speaking out against the war Q.E.D.)