Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli | Hacker News Reader

Err, you know the "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right?

I'm all for civil disobedience, but I'd suggest something that doesn't actually cause a panic.

View on HN

> "yelling fire in a movie" is the famous example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, right?

It is an example of nothing of the sort, since that scenario never happened. That hypothetical scenario was dreamed up to justify the arrest of a war/draft protester for what was plainly political speech.

Actually, that scenario has happened. It was never tried in court, but yelling "Fire" in a crowded building has happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster

Yeah, I know... it's a metaphor. The point is that you don't have the right to literally say whatever words you want, absolutely whenever you want (nor, I think, should you).

The TSA stuff is bonkers, though, and I think totally unconstitutional.

No, you don't know. As the comment you replied to and misunderstood pointed out, that metaphor was originally used in the context of a SCOTUS ruling which made it a criminal act to distribute anti-draft pamphlets -- a ruling which was overturned in 1969. By continuing to invoke it, you're misunderstanding the original intent and also perpetuating the myth that the phrase has any basis in current U.S. law.

I don't think it's relevant to the point I was making especially if we both agree that one cannot, in fact, expect first amendment protection for falsely yelling fire in a theater.

No, he DOES now. The original intent was, beside whatever political motivation, to give an "example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment". Exactly as he wrote.

That phrase came from a case that was completely unrelated to the content of the quote, and was used to claim that writing anti-draft pamphlets was illegal speech.

That verdict was later effectively overturned, and the judge who first said those words also had this to say shortly afterward in another free speech case:

"The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out."

It's time to stop trotting out that fear-mongering phrase.

As I said, I'm not actually about to do it. Perhaps just yelling: "If I were a bomb, you'd all be dead. This line makes you less safe!", or something like it, would avoid causing a panic. Even so, I'd still have the expectation of being arrested.

I don't think yelling anything in public is protected by free speech, but it's hardly going to cause a panic or hurt anyone. If he yelled "BOMB!" that would be different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com