When you’ve asked a few random people to name a situation, that would not If you are protected under the “Free Speech” clause of the First Amendment, there is a good chance at least one of you will give the example of someone shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater (when there is no fire). Over the past century the scene has been used far and wide to illustrate that if your “freedom of speech” harms people, you can still end up in the defendant’s chair. But as is so often the case with interpreting the law, it really isn’t that simple.
When people started discussing human fire alarms at full gatherings, it was less a constitutional debate than a threat to society. There were dozens of tragedies during the late 1
The fear of fire was not unfounded. Because not all buildings had sprinkler systems, neon exit signs and capacity limits, numerous deadly flames occurred. More than 600 people died in the fire at the Iroquois Theater in Chicago in 1903, although (ironically) this building was actually considered fire-resistant.
In short, “fire!” In a crowded theater, an idea was firmly entrenched in the public consciousness when judges co-opted the term for legal arguments on first adjustment rights.
Discussion of fire in a crowded courtroom
The axiom became popular in legal fields after Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. mentioned it during Schenck versus the United States 1919, but he wasn’t the first to use it in court. As Carlton FW Lawson in a 2015 article in the William & Mary Bill of Rights JournalThe US attorney Edwin Wertz had issued a longer version of it last year when he was prosecuting the activist Eugene Debs. Since Holmes decided on Deb’s appeal a week after the Schenck case, he may even have received the idea from Wertz.
Each case was fraught with a violation of the 1917 Espionage Act, which made it essentially criminal to do anything that disrupted U.S. military operations – including rejecting the draft. Debs, a World War I opposed pacifist, came under fire for a speech he gave in Ohio; and Charles T. Schenck, the general secretary of the US Socialist Party, landed in the Supreme Court for distributing leaflets encouraging men to reject the draft.
Both defendants were convicted, and Holmes justified his decision on the Schenck case by stating that “the strictest protection of freedom of speech would not protect a man if he falsely shouts” fire “and causes panic in a theater.” But while his analogy is one hit an emotional chord, it really had nothing to do with constitutional law.
“The ‘crowded theater’ statement in Schenck was never a binding norm or doctrine,” Nashwa Gewaily, attorney for media and First Amendment, told Mental Floss. “It was basically a little bit of emotionally charged extra flair from Justice Holmes, outside of the official legal ruling on this case. A powerful image that lasts outside of its context … It wasn’t a high point in American case law. “
“Revenge” is fine
What Holmes said afterwards, however, became the standard for future free speech arguments. “The question in any case,” he said, “is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature that there is a clear and present danger of causing the essential evils which Congress must prevent.” . ”
For the next 50 years clear and current danger was the accepted – and somewhat vague – metric for determining whether spoken or printed material was protected language. Then, in 1969, the Supreme Court replaced it with something clearer. The case, Brandenburg versus Ohio, concerned a Ku Klux Klan leader named Clarence Brandenburg who had violated Ohio law to advocate “crimes, sabotage, or unlawful terrorism” for political purposes. (In his insulting speech he had mentioned the possibility of “revenge” [sic] if the federal government didn’t stop “[suppressing] the white, Caucasian race. ”)
Brandenburg appealed against his guilty verdict to the Supreme Court, which overturned the judgment on the grounds that his threats were too ambiguous to “[incite] or [produce] impending lawless act. “So that something qualifies as impending lawless actIt must: explicitly advocate violence, advocate direct violence and relate to violence that is likely to occur.
As Gewaily explains, judges interpret this standard “far more narrowly than many would assume”. For example, while individual institutions can condemn hate speech, they are legally protected unless it is a matter of “direct violence”.
When free speech is the least of your worries
So, mistakenly yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater fall outside the conditions of impending lawless actand therefore fall under First change protection? The short answer is that it depends on the circumstances. But here’s the long answer: if you get arrested for this, the charges against you could make the issue of free speech completely irrelevant.
“The falsely called warning, although technically spoken, could potentially violate a state’s criminal law to disrupt peace or disorderly behavior, whether or not it provokes a rush, for example,” says Gewaily. And if there is In a rush that kills someone, you could be charged with involuntary manslaughter. In other words, there is no law that specifically prohibits you from shouting “fire” in a theater. It’s the other laws that you should be concerned about.
Shout “bomb!” or “gun!” in public it would put you in a similar situation. For example, in May 2018, officials had to evacuate part of Daytona Beach International Airport after a man walked naked through the building and yelled at a bomb in the women’s bathroom. There was no bomb, but he was charged with “false reporting of a bomb”, “criminal mischief” and “sexual organ exposure” among other charges. In this case, no self-respecting attorney would advise him to claim his actions were protected by the first change.
That said, there is good news for anyone whose panicked scream is an honest mistake. “Someone who, in real mistake, shouted a warning to get the movement to a safe place would not be adequately punished for making that speech,” says Gewaily.
And if Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. taught us anything, then not every word a Supreme Court judge says counts as constitutional doctrine.
Do you have a big question for us to answer? If so, send us an email at email@example.com.