Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

None of your examples is what is meant by "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre." The quote is expressly about falsely shouting fire, not as part of the play, not as an honest act of attempting to alert people to a dangerous situation. The quote with more context is clear: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic..."

> If there is actually a fire in the theater, can they punish you for telling people? What if there isn't actually a fire but you believe that there is?

(IANAL) Law usually takes circumstance into consideration, and AIUI, usually comes to reasonable conclusions in this case. The Wikipedia article on this quote[1] goes into that:

> Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. If it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out. Similarly, state laws such as Colorado Revised Statute § 18-8-111 classify knowingly "false reporting of an emergency," including false alarms of fire, as a misdemeanor if the occupants of the building are caused to be evacuated or displaced, and a felony if the emergency response results in the serious bodily injury or death of another person.

(It continues with other jurisdictions and situations.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...





> None of your examples is what is meant by "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre."

Which is exactly the point, because they nevertheless literally are "shouting fire in a crowded theater".

> The quote with more context is clear: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic..."

Which is likewise why the people trying to use the quote all but universally omit the qualifiers -- it would otherwise be clear that, even in the context of Schenck, the constraint was intended to be narrow.

And even with the qualifiers, the original quote still doesn't do well with the first example or the third, because imposing a prior restraint under the hypothetical argument that people could get confused and panic is going to be a weak case when the reason someone is doing it is it to criticize the government, and it's quite objectionable to punish people for speech when they genuinely believe something to be true just because they've made an honest mistake.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: