
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


One of the common tropes used by the people who want to restrict speech is to give an example of restricted speech: “you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater,” they smugly claim. This piece of folk legalese permeates popular culture but the simply fact is, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater; there’s no law against it, knock yourself out. The old 1919 case that inspired that canard is often posited in Year One Law School discussions to take all the cocky newbies down a peg.
The law that actually sets the limits on free speech is 1969's Brandenburg case, which says someone cannot incite a riot or credibly threaten imminent harm on another person, particularly the president of the United States; however, even that is obviously a debatable prohibition since so many people do it. So a fire-yeller could be charged both civilly and criminally if they intentionally try to cause havoc & chaos, and someone gets hurt. That's key, their actions must have caused some kind of provable damage; simply saying they caused a little panic, fright or offense is not enough, though the anti-free speechers want it to be.
By Martin Hash4.2
99 ratings
One of the common tropes used by the people who want to restrict speech is to give an example of restricted speech: “you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater,” they smugly claim. This piece of folk legalese permeates popular culture but the simply fact is, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater; there’s no law against it, knock yourself out. The old 1919 case that inspired that canard is often posited in Year One Law School discussions to take all the cocky newbies down a peg.
The law that actually sets the limits on free speech is 1969's Brandenburg case, which says someone cannot incite a riot or credibly threaten imminent harm on another person, particularly the president of the United States; however, even that is obviously a debatable prohibition since so many people do it. So a fire-yeller could be charged both civilly and criminally if they intentionally try to cause havoc & chaos, and someone gets hurt. That's key, their actions must have caused some kind of provable damage; simply saying they caused a little panic, fright or offense is not enough, though the anti-free speechers want it to be.