The ‘Yell Fire in a Theatre!’ Fallacy.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • paperwork351

    no error code for stupid
    Mar 7, 2008
    868
    Gaithersburg
    I've heard the "fire" analogy discussed from contract law. The buyer has certain expectations from the seller. The seller can't fulfill the reasonable expectations. Civil law. IANAL
     

    Boom Boom

    Hold my beer. Watch this.
    Jul 16, 2010
    16,834
    Carroll
    Owning a rifle is not unlike possessing a voice. Both are constitutionally protected. Both are generally safe if used wisely and legally. Either can be incredibly dangerous if abused. That's why our society already has thousands of laws in place for when either is used for illicit purposes. No matter how many laws our society makes, criminals will always ignore them and use guns, their voice, and any other tool at their disposal to commit crime.
     

    Les Gawlik

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 2, 2009
    3,384
    And you can, and perhaps should, yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if it is in fact on fire. (Throw this back at them and it will blow their minds.) And there is nothing particularly wrong in yelling "Fire" in an empty theater. What is punished is the *effect* of the conduct based upon the circumstances. You are not prohibited from speaking, just speaking in such a manner that the effect is not in the public interest.

    You can actually turn this argument around and make it pro 2A.
     

    Markp

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 22, 2008
    9,392
    I think the OP misses the point, Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is not about protected speech at all!!!

    You won't be cited for illegal speech, because that's not against the law, what is against the law is causing a public disturbance.

    Yelling "Fire" even in a movie theater is NOT illegal. Show me the law that states this?!?

    Using speech to cause civil unrest or a public disturbance is, but why? Because just like a firearm, there is no crime until you infringe on the rights of others to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater does infringe on the rights of others in this setting to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Owning an "assault weapon", Tank, Fighter Aircraft, or even a battleship does not.

    M
     

    Shaggy

    Active Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    151
    Westminster
    Great post. I had a coworker give me the the same "can't yell fire" argument last week and I really didn't have a good response.

    How do you respond when they ask "where do draw the line, rockets, tanks?"

    For the yelling fire one I usually tell them the above and if we treated the
    1A like the 2A, they would have said that yelling fire in a crowed theater
    is not allowed. Therefore we are banning the yelling of fire in any context
    unless it’s by a trained firefighter. Yelling fire at any time will result in criminal
    charges and you lose your right to free speech for the rest of your life. Pretty
    silly, but that’s how I view banning semi-automatic rifles because of looks.

    The 2A say we have the right to bear arms. In Colonial times “arms” meant
    weapons that could be carried. (rifel, pistol, sword and knives). When you
    talk about rockets, ICBM’s and grenades, you are moving into a group
    of weapons referred to as Ordinance. During the time the 2A was written,
    canons, rockets and hand grenades were in existence and all would have
    fallen under Ordinance and is not mentioned.

    This link is a breakdown of the 2A and does a decent job of breaking it down.
    If anyone else has something better, please post a link.
    http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

    I’m not a Constitutional lawyer but I find the above shuts down most of
    those stupid arguments.
     

    occbrian

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 3, 2013
    4,905
    in a cave
    I think the OP misses the point, Yelling "Fire" in a movie theater is not about protected speech at all!!!

    You won't be cited for illegal speech, because that's not against the law, what is against the law is causing a public disturbance.

    Yelling "Fire" even in a movie theater is NOT illegal. Show me the law that states this?!?

    Using speech to cause civil unrest or a public disturbance is, but why? Because just like a firearm, there is no crime until you infringe on the rights of others to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater does infringe on the rights of others in this setting to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Owning an "assault weapon", Tank, Fighter Aircraft, or even a battleship does not.

    M

    Calm down bruh. Never said it was illegal. Merely said there would be consequences for doing so.

    "Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence)"

    Also, the entire point of my post is to say that the fire in a theatre thing is stupid and is in no way corollary with the 2nd amendment. I think you missed the point of my post.
     

    Goateggs

    Active Member
    Jan 27, 2013
    411
    Annapolis
    I also think it's interesting that in the case in which the infamous 'fire in a crowded theater' line was concocted, Schenk vs. United States, the crime the defendant was accused (and convicted) of was distributing leaflets opposing the draft during World War I. I cannot imagine any good leftie being anything less than horrified that they're defending a principle that was used to criminalize anti-war speech.
     

    Tungsten

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 1, 2012
    7,232
    Elkridge, Leftistan
    I can somewhat understand people being against the 2A bc of the "tyrannical argument" line. Some of us believe that is what it is for, and others, who do not support the 2A, think that sounds like crazy talk. However, what I can't understand is why people don't support the 2A purely for self-defense reasons. We live in a city (Baltimore) that has a catch and release policy for violent predators. So I always wonder exactly what my hipster friends are thinking when they want to outlaw the only realistic way they could defend themselves against violent criminals. I know many hipsters, artist, scientists, gays, etc. and of all my friends, there may only be about 3 that I could count on in a fight. The rest are feeble victims waiting for the right circumstances to occur. The level of cognitive dissonance required to live in such a violent city, yet walk around completely neutered, is baffling to me.
     

    UNcommon Arms

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Feb 16, 2011
    332
    Howard County
    Dear advocates of Gun Control:

    When explaining that our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, I’ve frequently heard anti’s retort that the 1st Amendment is restricted as well. They explain that you can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a movie theater.

    That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 1st Amendment. The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't directly correlate with a ban on assault weapons, magazine capacity or the right to keep, carry or bear arms. Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence), but the government doesn't cut your vocal cords or put a muzzle on you before you enter a public space in order to protect the public in the off chance that you would do so. They don't BAN you from owning a voice or a particular TYPE of voice. There ARE current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, but you can’t SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT (without cause) or fire it in a public place. Just like you are allowed to have a voice, but there are restrictions on how and in what manner you can use it. Guns are already restricted in this manner.

    Imagine if the government made any citizen who wished to exercise their right to free speech submit to a background check, fingerprinting and a national database before exercising that right. They would have to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Every person who wanted to exercise their right to free speech would be required to pay $100 for the their Free Speech License and another $15 per public speaking event. They would have to do this every 5 years.

    In order to apply for your Free Speech license, you must be over the age of 21 (because you wouldn't be capable of using free speech or at least, wouldn't understand the ramifications of its use until you reached that age) and take an 8 hour Free Speech training course (paid for by you). Also, you would only be allowed the license if your voice registered under a certain decibel level and was of a particular dialect chosen arbitrarily by the government (because some accents are SCARY!)

    Upon receipt of your Free Speech License, you would be limited on the amount of time you could speak. Only 45 seconds of constant speech would be allowed (because anything that is THAT important can be said in under 45 seconds). There would be no justification for the limit, just that it is lower than what we have now and that equates to "better." You also would have to wait 7 days after applying before you could speak (because we don't want you to say anything rash in the heat of the moment or say something you will regret later). The government has the obligation to protect you from yourself.

    This law would be enacted in order to protect the public from the hateful evil abuses that some people (Westboro Baptist Church) use to harm innocents and to make sure that people aren't verbally abused or ridiculed to the point that they commit suicide (as is the case with many recent teenage suicides). Because, as Glorious Leader has said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child… then surely we have an obligation to try.”

    Sounds pretty ridiculous right?

    Ya, we think so too.
    Great minds think alike.

    I've published those very thoughts "cutting out tongues to prevent yelling fire..." several years ago and many times since in various op-eds opining the same idea in the Examiner Newspapers.

    Could not have said it better than you did. Thanks
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    You know this case law has been discredited. many times. Know why it will not die. We keep giving it credibility.

    Say yes you can and
    Refer them to the case law.

    All your discussion does is grant the premise.

    The premise is wrong,the cited case was an embarrassing blunder by the court and it has since been corrected.

    Or you can keep having the same argument over and over. Most people think you should not be able to yell fire in a crowded the Esther and you will not convince them otherwise so just tell.them they are wrong cite the case an save time.

    Or not. Its up to you of course.
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    I also think it's interesting that in the case in which the infamous 'fire in a crowded theater' line was concocted, Schenk vs. United States, the crime the defendant was accused (and convicted) of was distributing leaflets opposing the draft during World War I. I cannot imagine any good leftie being anything less than horrified that they're defending a principle that was used to criminalize anti-war speech.

    Quite so. The key is to get them to read the damn case. As tempting as it is do their homework for them -- they learn nothing that way..

    We can not indulge them. We must make them think at all costs...

    Cite the case then tell them they are full of it. If they bite you will win. If they don't you had no chance..but you saved time and can reach those who are able to learn..
     

    RightNYer

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    May 5, 2013
    489
    Not to mention that the whole purpose of the 1st Amendment is to allow people to petition the government and make unpopular statements about the workings of the government. It is not about porn or violent movies. Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is not the type of speech that was intended to fall under the scope of the 1st Amendment. Similarly, the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow defense of the self and of the state. In theory, a gun that is ONLY effective for target shooting, but not as an infantry weapon (again, I'm talking in theory) would not be protected by the 2nd Amendment, in my opinion.
     

    Benanov

    PM Bomber
    May 15, 2013
    910
    Shrewsbury, PA
    "Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence)"

    Please for the love of freedom STOP USING THIS ARGUMENT.

    The entire argument was to support suppression of war-time dissent:

    We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that, if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917, in § 4, punishes conspiracies to obstruct, as well as actual obstruction. If the act (speaking, or circulating a paper), its tendency, and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime.

    (Source: Popehat Article linked above)
     

    Brooklyn

    I stand with John Locke.
    Jan 20, 2013
    13,095
    Plan D? Not worth the hassle.
    Vinnie Demarco is a liar. Massachusetts instituted "licensing" in 1997 has seen their gun murders DOUBLE since that time.

    We ALL know licensing the law-abiding does not prevent criminal behavior.

    Wow a leftists lobbyist that lies.. I am dumbstruck.

    Dear Vinnie please stop lieing its not fair,
    Thanks.
    Your fiends at MSI..

    Solved..
     

    JailHouseLiar

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 26, 2013
    197
    Timonium, Maryland
    Dear advocates of Gun Control:

    When explaining that our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution, I’ve frequently heard anti’s retort that the 1st Amendment is restricted as well. They explain that you can’t yell, “FIRE!” in a movie theater.

    That is correct. There are certain limitations on the 1st Amendment. The fallacy of this argument is that it doesn't directly correlate with a ban on assault weapons, magazine capacity or the right to keep, carry or bear arms. Yes, you can’t yell fire in a crowded public space if there is no fire (at least, not without consequence), but the government doesn't cut your vocal cords or put a muzzle on you before you enter a public space in order to protect the public in the off chance that you would do so. They don't BAN you from owning a voice or a particular TYPE of voice. There ARE current restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. You can own a gun, but you can’t SHOOT PEOPLE WITH IT (without cause) or fire it in a public place. Just like you are allowed to have a voice, but there are restrictions on how and in what manner you can use it. Guns are already restricted in this manner.

    Imagine if the government made any citizen who wished to exercise their right to free speech submit to a background check, fingerprinting and a national database before exercising that right. They would have to pay out of their own pocket for everything. Every person who wanted to exercise their right to free speech would be required to pay $100 for the their Free Speech License and another $15 per public speaking event. They would have to do this every 5 years.

    In order to apply for your Free Speech license, you must be over the age of 21 (because you wouldn't be capable of using free speech or at least, wouldn't understand the ramifications of its use until you reached that age) and take an 8 hour Free Speech training course (paid for by you). Also, you would only be allowed the license if your voice registered under a certain decibel level and was of a particular dialect chosen arbitrarily by the government (because some accents are SCARY!)

    Upon receipt of your Free Speech License, you would be limited on the amount of time you could speak. Only 45 seconds of constant speech would be allowed (because anything that is THAT important can be said in under 45 seconds). There would be no justification for the limit, just that it is lower than what we have now and that equates to "better." You also would have to wait 7 days after applying before you could speak (because we don't want you to say anything rash in the heat of the moment or say something you will regret later). The government has the obligation to protect you from yourself.

    This law would be enacted in order to protect the public from the hateful evil abuses that some people (Westboro Baptist Church) use to harm innocents and to make sure that people aren't verbally abused or ridiculed to the point that they commit suicide (as is the case with many recent teenage suicides). Because, as Glorious Leader has said, “If there is even one step we can take to save another child… then surely we have an obligation to try.”

    Sounds pretty ridiculous right?

    Ya, we think so too.

    Wrong. I hear this all the time. My kids say "Dad, you can't eat sweets" as I have high blood sugar.

    OK, I'm not supposed to eat sweets, but I certainly CAN. I'm not supposed to yell "fire" in a theater when there is none, but I certainly CAN. In both cases, I'd pay a penalty for doing what I shouldn't.

    Sorry to be so critical, but when deconstructing arguments that indeed are fallacy, I think it's imperative to use the correct language.

    Besides that, I agree. They don't cut out your tongue so you actually CAN'T yell "fire" when there is none.
     

    dforeman

    Member
    Aug 9, 2013
    33
    Great post. And, I am in agreement with others that say that you can indeed yell fire in a crowded theatre. But, there are consequences of that action (especially if somebody gets hurt).

    Demarco is a bumbling blow heart idiot. He sat a couple of seats away from me with a small group of Mom's against illegal guns during the judicial hearings. The one lady that I talked with was at least willing to look at both sides of the issue and learn something about the subject that maybe she didn't know (or consider yet). She was at least willing to be open minded about issues. Demarco, on the other hand, was very stand-off-ish. He wouldn't even talk about the subject. He basically has his mind set along one path. And, is an individual unwilling to even discuss/learn about the other side of the coin which makes him a bumbling idiot in my book. Unfortunately, this idiot has the ear/support of numerous people who live in Baltimore City that do not know anything about honest responsible gun ownership (and personal responsibility).
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,940
    Messages
    7,259,685
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom