The Only Time to Yell, “Fire!” is in a Crowded Theater
by
Graham Crandall (Whajonahle)

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Only Time to Yell, “Fire!” is in a crowded theater ...

Though I had planned on a different article being my second blog (working on it), a topic was brought up on “Inside the Eye” the other night that I had to briefly comment on …

During the show, someone said that without the right to freedom of speech/freedom of expression, we don’t have the basis for any other rights.  I couldn’t agree more. 

The US Supreme Court’s decision to limit free speech – the notable, “ … a person doesn’t have the right to falsely yell, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” – is one of the two WORST decisions ever made by the Court. 

1919 US Supreme Court

A Specious Metaphor

In the first place, what if the theater IS, in fact, on fire?  The case the court decided upon was NOT about “crowded theaters,” but POLITICALLY DANGEROUS SPEECH.  In such a case, WHO has the right to decided if the “theater” is truly on fire?  If the person expressing himself believes it burning, that person has not only the right, but the responsibility to yell, “Fire!”  This relates directly to the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY the author of the 1^st Amendment expressed in the Declaration of Independence 11 years previous:

                “ …  whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”  -- Thomas Jefferson, et.al.,The Declaration of Independence

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Supreme Court Justice who wrote the “Fire!” opinion, later doubted his own decision, and voted AGAINST the application of the opinion in a similar case.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Secondly, it is not the speech or expression that should ever NEED to be limited.  To take the “crowded theater” metaphor literally, if a person were to yell, “Fire!” in a theater that was not ablaze, and people were injured as a result, it would be the reckless action of that person in totality, not the word or speech itself. The same malicious action could be taken by pulling a fire alarm, or lighting a smoke bomb in the theater, both more likely to get the desired reaction (a crowd frantically trying to exit a theater). By simply falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a theater, the crowd’s reaction could just as likely be, “Shut up!  I’m trying to watch the movie, you moron!” 

Irresponsible speech, such as “Fire!” should be equated more to “libel” or “slander.” Certainly, a person has the RIGHT to make libelous or slanderous statements, and the 1^st Amendment rarely is invoked; rather, these cases are judged on the injuries and damages caused by the utilization of the right to speak freely.

However, if indeed the motivation to shout, “Fire!” is in to a political or social warning – which the theater metaphor was clearly used to represent -- the voracity of the warning call is an extremely grey area.  Unfortunately, the analogy endorsed by the Court could easily be used to silence speech which those with the power to do so deem dangerous.

Speech or expression of any kind should not be limited in any way, ever. The ONLY time to yell, “Fire!” is in a “crowded theater” because the biggest issues effect the most people.  And when the warning is needed, there is inevitably an opposition with both the cache and the cause to claim that nothing is burning. The Court’s decision to limit speech opened the door to the current environment of Political Correctness which is on the verge of absurd.      

This picture says it all, or doesn't, as it were. 

Three other quick thoughts on the 1^st Amendment, while on the subject:

ON BULLYING

The current concept of “Bullying” is an extremely dangerous step toward indoctrinating the youth to the concept that they DON’T, in fact, have the right to free speech.  The term “Bullying” has been redefined to mean almost anything that hurts another’s feelings.  This is nothing more than an insidious attempt to control the expression of mindful perceptions and values. To this end (and for the purpose of artistic freedom), the wording of the 1^st Amendment should include, “the RIGHT to OFFEND.”  This includes the right to be mean, hurtful, obnoxious, and insulting; sometimes the TRUTH is mean, hurtful, obnoxious, or insulting.  The efforts in regard to “Bullying” should be directed at learning how to deal with ideas and words that offend one’s sensibilities.  “Sticks and Stones,” man.

As you can see, the Noose on this Anti-Bullying propaganda campaign is composed of WORDS.  Bullying and “teasing” are not the same thing, never were.  It should be called and Anti-Teasing or Anti-Insult campaign, but that would expose the ridiculous nature of it.  No one wants to see anyone hurt themselves, and teaching oversensitivity to teasing and insults only CONTRIBUTES to the problem. 

ON HATE CRIME

In much the same way, the idea of “hate crime” is nothing more than punishing a person for his or her THOUGHTS.  The crime should be judged on the manner of the crime committed.  If someone is beaten to death, the motivation of such a beating is irrelevant.  To charge a person with a “hate crime” is essentially charging a person with THINKING a certain way.  If two similar offenses occur, and one deemed a “hate crime” carries a greater sentence, this additional time is added only for the thoughts in the person’s head when the crime was committed.  Ipso Facto, the charge of “hate crime” is a “thought crime.”

ON IDIOTS

To illustrate how ignorant many people are about the concept of “Freedom of Religion”: A little over a decade ago, a radio personality was discussing a French court decision to ban Muslim headdress from public schools.  The female sidekick stated she was in full support of the decision because, “That’s what separation of Church and State means.” Ugh!  Quite the opposite, Separation of Church and State would imply that the school or court could NOT infringe upon the rights of the people whose religious beliefs required they wear a particular garment.  By “banning” this practice, the State infringed upon that person’s Freedom of Religion.  The idea that this idiot inverted the notion without being challenged or corrected by any of her cohorts (in fact, they AGREED with her perversion of the concept) on a radio show with a large market share in a city of 1.5 million has annoyed me to this day.

NEVER SHUT UP!

Speech is merely the verbal expression of the ideas, thoughts, and feelings inside a person’s mind.  The 1^st Amendment addresses the most BASIC right: the right to express these ideas, thoughts, and feelings.  Without the right to expression, we CANNOT support any of the other Freedoms we are endowed with.  At this time in history, we must vehemently (and VOCALLY) oppose the insidious attempts to erode what Jefferson deemed worthy of #1 on his Top Ten list.