Can we finally kill the meme about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?

[intaglio]

Interesting sidelight in the ceiling collapse at the Apollo Theatre. In this BBC video report (cannot embed BBC i-Player) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25461011 at 22 seconds the interviewee, Johnny Cardozo, says that someone shouted "... everybody needs to get out, now!". But Mr Cardozo and others thought it might be part of the performance.

[pipoman]

1. meme?

It is a reference to an exception to the right to free speech based on a SCOTUS decision, Schenck v. United States...not a meme.

[intaglio]

2. But it is used all the time regarding limitations to free speech

It was dubious example when first used by Oliver Wendell Holmes and it is about time it was abandoned.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

3. It is an excellent example of the limitations on free speech

Here is the full quote, from Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919):

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Now, I happen to disagree with much of Shenck, which places too great a restriction on free speech. I believe that Justice Holmes was wrong when he said that Shenck's actions (passing out leaflets urging draft resistance during WWI) presented a "clear and present danger" to the country. But his statement about falsely shouting "fire" is quite correct.

[intaglio]

4. Check the BBC recording

Someone shouted the equivalent of "Fire" and it was ignored. Holmes assumed that at the shout of fire that the mass of people would panic. The example Holmes used to explain his judgment was heavily flawed.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

19. The significant part of Holmes' dictum

Was falsely shouting "fire" and causing a panic.

In the incident you are referring to, there was an actual fire, but the cry of "fire" was not believed. Two completely different things.

[intaglio]

41. And how do you distinguish the cases?

In one case Holmes presumed that the shout of fire would - in and of itself - cause panic. In the other, although there was actual physical danger, no-one did much.

A corollary to Holmes' point is that, by his logic, a shout of "fire" that was truthful would cause panic and hence harm.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. So you are saying that it SHOULD be okay to go into a crowded theater and announce

"GUNMAN everybody get out of here!" Whereby children are trampled in the mele that ensues? You are arguing that it should be protected speech and you should face no consequences? I can't grok that this is what you are saying....

The point of it is not legality but of responsibility....if you did that you would pay the consequences of your actions....including the possibility of manslaughter.

[intaglio]

62. Firstly you are assuming that panic will automatically ensue

My whole point is that there is no such evidence for such an event - indeed what evidence there is shows the reverse to be true, people do not panic that easily and so Holmes' was in error to limit free speech on that basis.

But I really cannot see you agreeing with that evidence, so I'll imagine there is a fantasy world where such panic does ensue. In such a place what would happen in the following cases?

1) If there was a real gunman would not children be trampled just as badly and would that not add to the death toll?

2) What if the gunman fled and the only evidence was the shout? Would children not be trampled?

3) What if the alarm was raised on a false positive, no gunman but someone who looked like one?

Would you prosecute the person who raised the alarm in each of those cases? And how would you differentiate the last 2 cases from the case with a malicious alerter?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I was finishing this post I was reminded of William Castle, the film showman whose whole career was based on the audience not being panicked by verifiable events.

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. "firstly" we know that this happens...

and what difference does that make? IF you do this and there is no fire...and it DID cause a panic...and people died....YOU would be responsible...you caused any death or destruction that ensues. It is that simple....

It's not about the speech...it is about being held responsible for the repercussions of that speech.

Why do you think falsely pulling the Fire Alarm is against the law? You think people that do that are prosecuted because they just wasted some people's time?

[intaglio]

91. How do you know "this happens"?

Can you provide any evidence to support your contention apart from anecdote? As I say, how is it that a man shouting fire can raise a panic when a fire alarm cannot?

As to repercussions of speech ...
Is "We should murder those people" permitted to be said?

How about "I'll kill you for that!"?

Or what about "the mentally unsuitable must be kept from owning guns at all costs,"?

The first seems to be a direct threat, but say it is a sports fan about an opposing team? The second was a threat - to me by my sigoth after a particularly bad pun. As for the third well I've seen DUers and others who want gun control post what, in essence, is the same thought.

Now try, imagining the first said by a member of Stormfront. That is hate speech and should be taken as incitement to kill and can be prosecuted as incitement to kill; but should sports fans also be restricted from using those words? As for the second imagine it is being said to you by George Zimmerman, that puts you in fear of your life and he should be charged with isssuing threats; but should my lady be charged? The third, well very similar things were said by the German authorities back in the 1930s - about the Jews, the Slavs and the Roma; if an Illinois Nazi says it then at the very least he or she should be put on a watch list for inciting racial hatred but should a DUer be charged with inciting hatred of the mentally ill?

There is another legal truism - "Hard cases make bad law,"

I said in the earlier posts that I do not like where the logic of Hitchens' case leads, which is that all speech should be unfettered and that only the effects of such speech can be charged. The context of his argument was the appalling blasphemy laws proposed for the UK. The problem is that you have to start legislating against words. There are certain words I loathe, racial and sexual slurs amongst, them but I do not think you can ban the use of words.

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. Actually YES you can....you can even be arresteprosecuted for assault just for threatening someone

you are going way around the bend on this.....

I don't get why you cannot concede that the idiom has nothing to do with whether or not it has ever happened! That's of no consequence....

Want to prove your theory? Go to your nearest airport and proclaim you are wearing a bomb....and see if you get no reaction mkay?

[intaglio]

95. Ok, so you are talking about current law

Which is based upon the judgment of the USSC that used that idiom

But my contention was that the use of that idiom provided a false prop to the decision ...

And I was wrong there are 2 cases which may have been used to justify Holmes' tale

The Surrey Gardens Disaster in 1856

And the Italian Hall disaster in 1913

I'll be posting more detail below.

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. I am talking about common sense...

yes things you say have consequences....even legal ones. Freedom of speech without regulation is no different than a "free market"...there ARE limitations.

[intaglio]

106. Then get the 1st amendment changed no further text.

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. I don't have to....that would be you...I agree that if you pull the fire alarm...

you will be prosecuted...

If you don't like it....I suggest you protest...see how far that gets you! As you can see from this thread...not many will agree with your position!

[marybourg]

90. In pre-history,

that is, before you were born, when stage lighting was provided by oil lamps, when many more people attended theater performances and there were no fire-resistant curtains, theater fires were far more common, people did panic when "fire" was called and people died. Think fires in dance clubs in more recent times. Or maybe even that was before your time; I'm getting old and everything feels like just yesterday to me. Justice Holmes was quite correct in his world view given HIS life experience.

[Kaleva]

81. One could be charged with manslaughter, if people were killed...

and held liable for other damages but you can't be charged for falsely yelling "GUNMAN everybody get out of here!". There is no law against that in of itself.

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. The pulling the Fire Alarm in the next building you enter and see if there is a law against it!

its exactly the same thing!

[Kaleva]

110. No it's not the same thing

You will note when looking at the laws which make pulling a fire alarm a felony when there is no actual emergency, they are vary specific in that one must actually activate the alarm in order to be charged with a crime.

Speech is protected under the 1st Amendment unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. Yes it is...if there is no fire...

and the pulling of the alarm would BE speech. And going into a theater to yell fire...would be done TO incite violence...

Why else would you do it if not to create panic?

[Kaleva]

112. There's a difference between panic and lawless behaviour

Again, look at the laws that relate to pulling a fire alarm. Then try to find a law that specially says it is illegal to falsely yell fire. You'll easily find examples of the former but not of the latter.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

71. You seem determined to misunderstand

Holmes is speaking of a hypothetical case, in which someone falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater and causes a panic. If this happens, then it is not protected under free speech.

He nowhere either says or implies that shouting "fire" will automatically cause a panic.

[intaglio]

84. Hypothetical means that it reflects reality

His example does not reflect reality, therefore it should not be used as a justification for restricting free speech.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

115. So, according to you, if you falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater

You will NOT cause a panic.

That's the only way your statement makes sense.

[intaglio]

118. No I have shown that a shout of "Fire" or ...

"Get out of here now" or a fire alarm does not cause panic. I have shown that a fire alarm triggered falsely does not trigger panic

What is so special about a false cry of "Fire" that it has to generate panic? I say there is nothing special about such a cry and it has no special power that will cause panic, you say there is such a power.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

119. I agree that you have not shown that a shout of "fire" will not cause a panic

Rather, you have alleged it. And I would amend your statement "I have shown that a fire alarm triggered falsely does not trigger panic" to " I have shown that a fire alarm triggered falsely does not necessarily trigger panic". Your claim that it apparently never causes panic, based on a single incident, is an example of the logical fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.


You say "What is so special about a false cry of "Fire" that it has to generate panic?". I repeat my previous statement that you seem determined to misunderstand. It is the cry of "fire", true or false, which causes the panic. However, if there is an actual fire, then the person raising the cry is acting properly. It is when the cry is false that the cry is criminal.

[intaglio]

121. Proof - if fire alarms caused panics, why are they used to alert occupants of buildings?

They do not cause such panics; they alert all the people in a manner that allows them to safely evacuate even though more people hear them.

I have shown that, in the example of the Apollo Theatre, people do not run on an alarm. I pointed out that the warning cries at the Aurora Theater did not stimulate a mass panic or even particular alarm until the shots were heard. I have also quoted the career of William Castle whose oeuvre demonstrated that vocal alarms and screams from audience members are not enough to induce panic, he showed that even having fake casualties was not enough to induce panic. Another poster highlighted the fact that you need training and trust to respond to alarm calls and that the a shout of alarm tends to have others in the area look for confirming detail before reacting.

In the light of this you have made an extraordinary claim - that people do panic when an alarm shout is raised and specifically when a false alarm call is made. Please provide your evidence.

[Kaleva]

78. USSC reversed itself on that sometime ago.

One cannot be arrested for falsely shouting fire in a theater but one can be held liable for the consequences of such an act.

Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 limited the restriction to free speech to that which was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

116. So you are claiming that falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and causing a panic is now OK?

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) overturned at least part of Shenck. Here is the apposite bit to this argument from Justice Douglas's concurrence in Brandenburg

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.

This is saying that falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is can legitimately be prosecuted.

[Kaleva]

123. One can be held liable for whatever happens after doing so.

But if nothing happens other then people leaving the theater in an orderly fashion even if they are scared, then one can't be arrested or charged altough I imagine someone could file a civil suit claiming loss of income or such.

Note the difference with the laws concerning activating a fire alarm when there is no emergency. One can still be charged even if there is no panic, injuries or whatever. There could be no one else in the building and one could still be charged.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

125. Just what is the difference between falsely crying "fire" and falsely pulling a fire alarm?

The two acts differ only in the means used. In both cases, the assumption would be that the malfeasor intended to cause a panic, or at best is guilty of malicious mischief.

[Kaleva]

126. Read the laws regarding fire alarms

One has to physically activate the alarm when there is no emergency in order to be charged with committing a crime. Just yelling fire isn't enough. One has to set off the alarm. There is your difference.

It's easy doing google searches to find examples of laws that deal with setting off fire alarms. I have yet to find a law that deals with falsely yelling fire.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

127. So you cannot give me a specific difference, just some narrowly drawn laws.

[Kaleva]

128. I gave you a specific difference

Can you provide an example of a law which specifically states that it is a crime to falsely yell fire? I bet you can't. Neither of us would have any trouble producing a list of laws which specifically deal with falsely setting off a fire or smoke alarm.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

129. Yes, you gave me a specific difference

The difference between shouting "fire" and pulling a fire alarm. Or, in other words, there is no ACTUAL difference.

[treestar]

5. It's meant to distinguish something

from something else, and thus is useful. A false claim of fire to create a panic is an act, not just speech.

[intaglio]

6. But false claims of fire do not induce panic any more than actual claims of the ceiling falling

The example is flawed and based upon Holmes elitist assumption that the general public is uneducated.

[treestar]

11. If there actually is a fire in the theater

the example doesn't apply.

What would education have to do with it? The uneducated know to get away from fire.

[intaglio]

14. The example shows that shouting to induce flight does not work

And that applies as much if the shout is factually correct or a fraud.

Holmes assumed that the bulk of attendees at the theatre would be credulous enough to flee in a manner that would result in death. He was wrong

[treestar]

15. I don't see that as credulous

I have a postgraduate degree, but if someone shouted fire, I'd be ready to leave. That's why the justice used the example. Especially in his day, when fire was a greater danger.

The theater was something he happened to use as an example, yet it has another layer - the performance. People get into a performance and may lose attention to the actual surroundings. Thus people thinking it was part of the performance.

[intaglio]

21. Exactly, you would be ready to leave

But you would check further before leaving, not run without reason just as the vast majority of humanity would check.

The reason why I so profoundly object to Holmes' judgment is that the Justices imposed a limitation on free speech on no basis other they did not like what the speaker was saying. I do not like where this leads as I note in my post #17 but I dislike even more the concept that freedom of speech is somehow abridged.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. If someone screams "DUCK!"

How many people will take the time to evaluate whether or not the the shout is a warning or a joke?

If you pause long enough for that assessment and it is a joke, no big deal. If you pause long enough and it is a warning you are injured, maimed or dead.

Maybe it is me, but evolutionary survival instincts would tend toward the former reaction than the latter.

Now, if it is a joke, and I duck, but lose my balance in the process and suffer injury or death, you are saying that the joker should not be held liable?

You seem to be looking for absolute rights in the law, which involves humans beings who are nothing if not massive hues of grey. I consider myself a 1st Amendment hawk, but even I believe that libel and slander laws should exist.

If laws are "absolute" then you get ridiculous outcomes (see "zero tolerance" policies in school).

Let us look at the legal definition of battery:

The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care to avoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant's conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount to criminal negligence.

Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may also be assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning.

There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant's wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act sets in motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, was found guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. A defendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an open window, causing him to fall and injure himself.

Now, allow me to give you a personal, real world example of a situation that would have caused me grief under and "absolute" application of the law of battery.

I was standing on a street corner waiting to cross and a young woman talking on her cell walks past me off the curb and directly into the path of an on coming car. I reached out, grabbed the back of her jacket and yanked her backward out of the path of the car. She went over backward and hit her head on the sidewalk. Fortunately, this resulted in a goose egg and not a concussion or stitches. She went off one me, because to her, I attacked her and threw her to the ground and she reacted accordingly. Several other people had to explain to her what had happened and she was skeptical demanding to know why she didn't hear a car horn (the answer being was her actions happened at such close proximity that even the driver didn't notice). A policeman shows up and she is hostile and abusive and wants me arrested. I was fortunate that the policeman accepted the explanation of the other witnesses and that she did not pursue civil action. Had she done so, I would probably have prevailed due to the circumstances of the situation.

Under an ABSOLUTE interpretation of "battery" however, I would have been arrested, prosecuted and convicted, since by literal reading of the statute I intentionally made contact with her and intentionally harmed her (even though I was protecting her from a greater harm).

There are VERY few laws that can be written as absolute literal proscriptions without exception. I would argue that those laws would be restricted to things the state is NOT permitted to do, not things we may do to each other. If you grant someone with right to act in a particular way without limit against someone else, they will abuse it.The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, the press, religion and assembly from government interference. By and large I would grant a great deal of latitude to those rights, and I do believe they have been unjustly abridged. But I would never grant the first amendment as an absolute right with no limits. Justice Holmes' example was about the only thing he got right in his ruling as a reasonable criteria for such a limit.

[intaglio]

100. Have you ever tried that?

Mostly people look round wondering what you should duck. Some will probably wonder why you are shouting obscenities.

Most people are not aware of what is round them (look at the famous gorilla on the basketball court experiment) let alone what is said. A lot of military training is about getting people to respond to situations and orders without thinking; if your point man yells "sniper" you do not ask where, you duck, dive and roll to cover.

[Kelvin Mace]

108. Somepeople freeze

other people move.

As you said, depends on training.

The question still is: If some one screams "duck" as a joke, and I get hurt, he walks because "1st Amendment"?

If laws are to be absolute, do I go to jail for pulling someone out of the path of a car?

[treestar]

99. It's not speech, it's an act

to fraudulently yell "fire" in a crowd, when there is no fire, is something done to create hysteria. He's not trying to limit anyone's speech.

If there is a fire, you can yell about it. How people handle that is a different matter. They used to train you in school with fire drills and teach you that just running would result in a jam up but leaving single file, quickly, would get more people out. But that wasn't the justice's point. He was showing how there might be a situation where the speech wasn't to tell people anything, but to cause a problem.

[Denzil_DC]

16. If the shouter had had the presence of mind to be more explicit, people might have responded.

Not that I'm judging him in the heat of the moment, of course.

In a theater show, people are expected suspend disbelief and generally enter an arena of fantasy, so it can make make it difficult to distinguish a real warning from part of the performance.

If he'd stood up, shouted, and pointed, "This is NOT part of the performance, LOOK UP, THE CEILING IS COLLAPSING, SO EVERYBODY NEEDS TO GET OUT NOW," it might have had more effect.

On the other hand, more people might have been injured in the resulting stampede. He might have been better to alert an usher if there was one around, so they could execute a standard fire drill.

Having noticed what was happening, I'd imagine he'd have blamed himself after the event if things had turned out worse and he hadn't made an attempt to warn everyone.

This isn't what "shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" is all about, anyway, as others have pointed out.

[intaglio]

23. I have noted elsewhere

... this analogy to the shout of "fire" is used to abridge free speech and that I think is more chilling than the possibility of free speech causing harm.

[Denzil_DC]

29. That's obviously the ax you're trying to grind.

But it doesn't really work as an analogy in this case anyway.

If you read the longer article and view the videos, the shouter mentioned wasn't by any means the only one who noticed the ceiling collapse--a ripple of realization was running through the audience, because it was a real event and a real danger, not a fiction or a false alarm.

How do you think others alerted their neighbors to the danger? Other audience members noticed what was happening, and for all we know, may have called out in a similar way, though perhaps not as loudly. Word seems to have gotten around pretty quickly, then more chunks of ceiling started falling, so the danger quite quickly became clear.

As it is, it doesn't sound like there was guaranteed safe place to shelter inside the theater, at least nowhere that would have been obvious, so moving immediately might not have helped that much, but nobody would have known how bad the collapse was going to get at that stage, and in the longer term, getting the hell out of there was no doubt the advisable thing to do.

In this case, that ripple of realization was probably the best thing to happen--not everybody moved at once, and there was probably less panic, hence fewer injuries from the crush of people trying to get to the nearest exits.

Allied to this is the other saying about the boy crying "WOLF!"

To continue the analogy, if people (and especially the same person) were to make a habit of shouting "FIRE!" and it repeatedly turned out to be false alarms, after each incident audiences would be progressively less likely to pay attention.

In the real world, I'd imagine if there are any other theaters running shows that feature interjections of this type from plants in the audience, they'll be looking at modifying them, at least while this incident is fresh in the public memory.

[intaglio]

35. I did read the (several) articles

The point is that the declaration did not cause panic. It was the realisation of actual physical effects. Not even people trying to get away spooked the rest of the audience, it was the fact that the evidence from noise and flight could not be explained away. Dealing with your final point, planting actors in the audience for performance effects has been used in the theatre for more than a century

In the same way Hitchens begins his, singular, talk by shouting fire and, guess what? It has no effect. Your point about the boy shouting "wolf" is apposite because in that tale no-one harms the lad or imprisons him for his error. Should the boy shouting "wolf" be sent for therapy or to juvenile hall after the first offense?

But the point of Holmes' observation was about the bad effects of free speech and how you should limit it on the basis of fear. My point is that you should not limit it solely on that basis.

I'll post the links to the Hitchens videos in a couple of minutes.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. WTF does that have to do with the statement you are opposing?

it has nothing to do with whether or not people respond to it....IF they DO and they are harmed...The guy making the false claim of fire IS responsible for the aftermath of that! Including jail time if people are maimed or killed..That is ALL the statement means...

Free speech doesn't mean you can say ANYTHING and suffer no consequences from it...so THAT is the limitation of free speech.


And as another example...I think most jurisdictions have laws against "incitement to riot" and you can be sued for ruining someone's reputation with just words.....you are going to be sued for "lible". Also threatening bodily harm is considered assault and can get you a nice ride in Officer Joe's car downtown.


See...words have consequences..

[Denzil_DC]

59. "I'll post the links to the Hitchens videos in a couple of minutes."

With all due respect, I seriously wouldn't bother on my account. It's approaching Christmas and I won't bother watching them if you do as I'm intent on getting into the spirit of the season and enjoying a few days' hard-earned holiday, and my experience of Hitchens, warts and all, means he isn't going to be part of it.

I don't know what you expected from this thread. I've pointed out that I consider your analogy flawed, I've explained why, your arguments aren't persuasive to me, particularly your attempt to sidetrack and dismiss the "boy who cried 'WOLF!'" analogy on the basis of some putative punishment I never posited and ignoring the counterproductive effect on public perception of false danger warnings, and it's evident you're not going to be persuaded yourself (What on earth has the fact that plants have been used over the course of theatrical history--for heck of a lot more than a century, by the way--add to the debate other than to be argumentative for the joy of it?), so I know better than to waste my time any further as you proceed to try to continue to stretch it. Have at it, but if you expected me join a grave chorus of, "Tut tut, yes, great analogy, isn't it awful?" I'm afraid I'm not your guy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. He seems to be forgetting what happened at that fire in the venue that Great White

was playing at in Rhode Island...people were stuck in doorways trying to get out and died...

Are you saying if you shouted "FIRE" and caused ^^^ that to happen....you shouldn't be held liable for those people's deaths?

Great White got sued and they weren't the ones that installed the flammable soundproofing in that theater.

[intaglio]

73. Errm - you mean there was a fire and people panicked

IIRC they did not panic until after the fire was well established and after they found that the fire exits they were using were blocked.

[VanillaRhapsody]

76. NO I am saying that even Great White got sued....

and they didn't even install non flammable sound proofing...the cause of the fire nor the cause of the exits being blocked.

I am saying....you can be held responsible.
If a baby was trampled after some dumbass ran into the theater as a joke and yelled "TERRORIST...BOMB!!" do you not think that family has a right to sue said dumb ass for everything he has or ever will have?

Is that the position you are taking?

[intaglio]

82. and I am saying that the you are using a false example

Yes, the fireproofing was frightening. I am saying that the crush was not of itself panic but ineffective fire exits.

The position I am taking is that a false alarm does not - induce - panic.

Therefore the position you are taking is based on a falsehood.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. Look its about being held responsible for the aftermath of shouting "FIRE"....

the statement is about free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of your speech....

[intaglio]

74. And my point is that that aftermath does not exist

There is an aftermath to a rapidly increasing fire and blocked fire exits but not to shouting fire.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. but it CAN....its not JUST about yelling FIRE...there are any number of words...

the phrase could just as easily be Terrorist and Bomb! Same conclusion....are you just pretending not to understand now because you cannot concede your point?

It's not that it can't be done....its that the person saying it CAN be held responsible! SHEESH...

[intaglio]

83. and my point again is that false alarms do not do what OWH said they did

Find an example where a false alarm caused such effects.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. You have no point....you are defending the indefensible....

are you saying that calling in a bomb threat should be defended as freedom of speech unless someone gets hurt?

Are you serious? Come on dude.....

[intaglio]

87. So you are using a different case entirely?

Calling in a bomb threat does not cause panic because it goes to professionals. What is more it is a threat and so covered under a different set of legal standards.

Shouting "Fire" or "bomb" or "gunman" is not a threat. It may well be that someone may be attempting to disrupt business or recreation by using that shout but they should have the freedom to make that claim can be charged for causing that disruption; in the UK the charge used is "disturbing the peace,"

Consider the case raised by nadinbrzezinski at #68 below. When a fire alarm sounds does everybody panic? Do they rush for the exits and die in the crush? No, of course they do not; so why should a man shouting "fire!" have a greater effect than a fire alarm?

[kcr]

92. It isn't a threat. But it would be the better example to use

for the point that people want to make. They should use that in place of the outdated fire theatre meme. You can't just yell/email bomb!

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. So can you pull a fire alarm in a building and not face charges?

[intaglio]

107. Of course, criminal damage if nothing else

But what happens when there is a fire alarm, is there panic?

[Captain Stern]

69. It's only one example, and it's a terrible one.

To take only one single incident and use it to come to a definitive conclusion about all cases is ridiculous.

In this case people were watching a play and thought the yelling was part of the performance. If you shouted "Fire!" or "He's shooting people!" in a crowded movie theater you'd probably have plenty of panic.

[intaglio]

79. I have given 2 examples of actual danger

I can find no examples of false claims causing harm - and I have the counter example of a producer who relied on the audience not panicking even though invited to do so.

If you want a further example then there is the Liverpool-Everton match at Hillsborough where, despite what the police claimed, people were so immune to panic that the kept following police instructions which allowed 96 fans to die. They were so immune to panic that even those dying tried to help others.

The only counter examples you will find is where there is actually a disaster in progress and escape is limited.

Why is this defense of a limitation to free speech still used?

[Tigress DEM]

27. Back when the most buildings were made of wood, did not have sprinklers or smoke detectors...

When most of San Francisco burned to the ground.....

BACK then if you shouted fire in a crowded theater, people would MOVE - stampeding over their fellow movie goers if need be to get out.

It was about group panic that didn't have the benefit of YEARS of indoctrination in the other direction. All the fire drills they have had at schools. All the pre-flight instructions have become a mainstream antidote to it.

[intaglio]

40. Evidence?

[Bluenorthwest]

53. History is full of actual theater fires, the Apollo London had no fire.

Iroquois in Chicago maybe the most famous US theater fire, 1903. 650 deaths confirmed, many others not counted. Ever heard of it prior to this moment?
Richmond Theater fire in 1811 or so saw 72 deaths, many from the panic in exiting.
Here's a 'wiki' on theater fires, covers 11 of the better known infernos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Theatre_fires

[Tigress DEM]

131. It just shows that even as smart as most people are these days, we take some things for granted.

Like that the roof of a theater that has stayed solidly above our heads is going to remain that way.

Maybe, like the airlines there will be that little speech about finding the exits. I think I've seen it mixed in with previews sometimes at larger theaters.

[IdaBriggs]

54. Google is your friend.

Wooden buildings and fire are historically bad combinations. Try looking for "Great Chicago Fire" or "Great London Fire" and expand your search from there.

[Tigress DEM]

130. For which? The word "FIRE" causing fear in people at that time or current mob panic?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-metaphor/

I DON'T Agree with Holmes using the analogy as a way to censor someone in legitimate free speech acts, but the actual limit of NOT doing something stupid that might cause a whole group to riot or panic is still valid.


http://crookedtimber.org/2013/02/17/falsely-shouting-fire-in-a-theater-how-a-forgotten-labor-struggle-became-a-national-obsession-and-emblem-of-our-constitutional-faith/

On Christmas Eve in 1913, the Ladies Auxiliary of the Western Federation of Miners local in Calumet, Michigan, held a party for the children of copper miners who had been on strike against their employer, the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company, since July. About 500 children and 175 adults packed the second-floor auditorium of the Italian Hall in Red Jacket, a small mining town on the Keweenaw Peninsula, which juts out onto Lake Superior. The miners were mostly immigrants from the peripheries of Europe—Finland, Italy, and the Balkans—but their children were one in their quest for the nuts, candy, and presents from Santa that the Ladies Auxiliary had provided.

As the children lined up in the front of the large room, someone shouted “Fire.” Nobody smelled smoke or saw flames, but the panicked children and adults rushed to the main exit at the back of the hall. They raced down the stairway, a few stumbled on the steep steps, others piled on top of them, and still others, unable to stop the onrush behind them, piled on top of the pile.

The stampede was over in minutes. The tangle of bodies in the stairway was so dense that rescuers out on the street could not pull any victims out from the bottom. They had to go through the hall and lift them from the top. Seventy-four people died, most of them children, some still clutching their Christmas presents.

To this day, no one knows who, if anyone, shouted fire. One possible explanation is that a child had fainted and that someone cried for water. Water—or its Finnish equivalent vettä—sounds like watra, which means fire in Serbo-Croatian. Many witnesses, however, claim that they saw a man with a Citizens’ Alliance—a local anti-union group of businessmen—button on his lapel enter the hall, shout “fire,” and run down the stairs. To their dying day, survivors claimed that the stampede was the work of a company man.

FIRE KILLED BACK THEN. BIG TIME. READ YOUR HISTORY. LABOR UNIONS FOUGHT FOR BETTER CONDITIONS AFTER THE TRIANGLE SHIRTWAIST FACTORY FIRE because it was tantamount to murder by the owners.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/p/trianglefire.htm

Historical Importance of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire March 25, 1911:
A fire at the Triangle Waist Company factory in New York City killed 146 workers. The large number of deaths exposed the dangerous conditions in high-rise factories and prompted the creation of new building, fire, and safety codes around the United States.


SO YOU NEVER HEARD OF THE SAN FRANCISCO "FIRE" actually MANY fires, but it was so bad the whole city burned more than once.

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/fire.html

SAN FRANCISCO began its history in a baptism of fires. Hardly had the Gold Rush of ’49 assembled a nondescript collection of wooden houses, tents, the hulks of ships, anything, in fact, to afford protection to the ever-increasing multitudes gathering from the four corners of the earth, but a disastrous fire wiped out the most important part of the new city.

Six fires in the first two or three years of her history caused the people to make extraordinary efforts to protect themselves against their recurrence. It was from this determination that the present efficient fire-fighting force sprang. Yet fires continue and will continue, as they did in those early days, and the price of eternal vigilance and preventive methods are the two chief auxiliaries at least of equal importance to force itself.

.....

The first of the great fires that visited San Francisco occurred at 6 o’clock on the morning of December 24, 1849, when it was estimated that $1,000,000 worth of property was destroyed.

Six months later, on May 4, 1850, the second great fire occurred. It began at 4 o’clock in the morning and by 11 o’clock three blocks of the most valuable buildings in the City had been destroyed, with an attendant loss of property estimated to be $4,000,000.






Even in THIS millennium people have trampled over one another on Black Fridays.
http://blackfridaydeathcount.com/


IN OTHER COUNTRIES
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-44906/120-trampled-death-soccer-stadium-panic.html
120 trampled to death in soccer stadium panic

At least 120 fans died and hundreds more were injured after a stampede at a football match in Ghana last night.

It is the third soccer stadium disaster to strike Africa inside a month.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38393697/#.UrX8d7TdfTs

BERLIN — Crowds of people streaming into a techno music festival surged through an already jammed entry tunnel on Saturday, setting off a panic that killed 19 people and injured 342 at an event meant to celebrate love and peace.

The circumstances of the stampede at the famed Love Parade festival were still not clear even hours after the chaos, but it appeared that some or most of the 19 had been crushed to death.


http://www.buwor.com/india-89-people-killed-trampled-due-panic/#.UrX-FrTdfTs

MORE?
http://listverse.com/2010/11/26/10-tragic-human-panics-and-stampedes/

[antiquie]

56. An example.

People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall (London) in 1856, in Harlem in 1884, and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

[scheming daemons]

7. Can we finally kill the word "meme"?

God... I hate that fucking word.

[intaglio]

9. It is a very useful word

What would you have in its place?

[Proud Public Servant]

22. No one word

That's the problem with "meme": lazy writers/thinkers use it to mean "analogy" (which is what you meant), "motif," "allusion," "quotation," and a host of other things that -- follow me here -- already have words that describe them. And that's as it should be; using meme for everything impoverishes language; impoverishing language, in turn, impoverishes thought.

[intaglio]

26. No, it was coined as a term for a self perpetuating mode of thought

In this the mode of thought is implicit in the phrase - i.e. the right to free speech can be abridged.

[Proud Public Servant]

49. So anything that illustates an idea is a meme?

Gosh, how did we manage to advance millenia of Western thought with out some catch-all term that didn't even exist until 1976 and wasn't in widespear use until people needed something to describe Rickrolling and LOLcats?

[jberryhill]

101. You aren't the only one

It's one of those substitutes for actual thought.

[reformist2]

8. This is a perfect example of the kind of thread that clutters up DU

Blah blah blah....

[intaglio]

10. So a post about a false equivalence used to justify restrictions on free speech is clutter

What do you want - cute puppies?

[treestar]

12. What you don't like it?

I think it's kind of interesting.

But has nothing to do with the saying about false shouting to start a panic. This was entirely different. It sounds like something really happened, but being in a theater, some thought it was not true but part of the performance.

Theaters maybe need a certain type of sound/siren to indicate something over and above the performance.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. and the odd compulsion to participate in them.

....halb halb halB

[kcr]

13. No.

Shouting "fire" in a theater to cause panic may not always work. But you still don't have a right to do it.

[intaglio]

17. But Holmes based his decision regarding rights not upon the actual for harm from a claim

Holmes argued that the false shout is criminal even though it does not cause harm. His decision was a way of stifling freedom; you should have an absolute right to shout fire in a theatre, what you do not have is the right to cause harm.

I'll admit I do not like where this logic leads because ,as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, it allows for the free presentation of some hate speech as long as it is not slanderous or an incitement to harm. The trouble is that nibbling at the edges of free speech damages the whole concept.

Examples:

Is saying that certain parts of the Yeshiva system world wide has abused children an anti-Semitic attack? If so why cannot declaring the Catholic Church world wide has abused children not anti-Catholic?

Is declaring yourself anti-Zionist in itself anti-Semitic and so make you guilty of hate speech? If so is declaring yourself against the full emancipation of the Palestinians because of terrorism not also hate speech?

[kcr]

25. Well, yes.

The person still tried to incite panic. You're off the hook if you aren't successful? How many other acts of crime work that way? Not many. It isn't stifling freedom. You don't have the right incite panic, even if the crowd doesn't react.

[intaglio]

30. The argument you are using here presupposes that you can read the intent of the speaker

I'm sorry, but I do not know many telepaths.

Does the guy who carries a weapon openly, intending harm? Would you say that a person who legally, or illegally, buys guns intends to kill? If a crime is prosecuted for intent usually there is some physical evidence, plans of the bank vault, recorded conversations detailing the effect, attempts to buy the materials. In the previous example an illegal purchaser could be prosecuted for intent to purchase if he phoned up a supplier and asked how to pay.

Taking an extreme example of Holmes' reasoning, say there are several people, scattered throughout the theatre, who all shout fire and all impel their neighbours to flee, then and only then, can intent be assumed for this particular example. On the other hand the actual shout of "fire" by one or two people who later claim the lighting effects on stage mislead them, you cannot prove intent.

[kcr]

33. Or if someone repeatedly yells fire in theaters where there are none

In both your example and mine, you don't think those people should be charged? People using the example usually aren't saying that every single person that utters the word fire above a certain decibel in theaters should be charged with a crime.

[intaglio]

38. Nope ...

I'll post Hitchens in a moment

[kcr]

42. Well, fortunately you're wrong

People who deliberately cause panic can be charged for it and it isn't likely to change.

[intaglio]

44. I've asked you to prove intent

but it cannot be done.

"I thought there was a fire,"
"I smelled smoke,"
"There was a flickering red light,"

What cases can you quote where false claims such as this actually caused panic?

And as I observed, why is it only false claims that can induce killing panic?

[kcr]

48. Who said false claims only induce panic?

I certainly haven't said that. Who ever did is certainly an idiot. I will agree with you there.

You asked me to prove intent? When? I didn't realize there was a specific case we were discussing. But if you're claiming that it would be impossible to prove that a person ever intended to incite panic? Why? There couldn't possibly be any other evidence that would point to the person's guilt? This is a crime that can't ever be codified in law, because it's just impossible to ever prove? That's ridiculous.

[Viking12]

96. apparently, you're not familiar with the function of the conjunction 'and'

Your objection to Holme's phrasing is silly.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. it worked better in the gaslight era when theaters regularly caught fire.

[kcr]

34. That's true

I think someone today might shout gun.

[intaglio]

37. They did - at Aurora n/t

[kcr]

43. An actual gun was used in Aurora

Again, you're using an instance where an actual incident occurred. Not sure why.

[intaglio]

45. Because in an actual incident no panic was caused

Your claim is that a false claim will, in and of itself, will cause panic; whereas a true claim will not cause panic. I have shown that a true claim does not induce panic. Hitchens shows that a false claim does not induce panic.

How does a false claim so differ from a true claim that it causes panic?

How could you make a true claim so that people are forced to panic?

[kcr]

46. No panic?

How do you figure? I imagine there was plenty of panic that day.

I'm making no such claim. I'm just saying that pointing out one incident doesn't prove your claim.

[intaglio]

52. But Holmes claim was that the false claim would induce panic.

Your claim is that true claims would not be harmful in the same way, as shown by the London case. In Aurora it equally did not induce the type of panic that caused harm. In both cases it produced the reverse of harmful panic: in London the audience watched and eventually walked away via the exits, there was no mad rush to get out of a packed theatre (and in London in Christmas season that theatre would have been completely full); in Aurora they crouched down an tried to hide there was no rush to the exits and such a rush would have given the gunman mass targets.

How is Holmes assertion that harm would be done by a false claim supported by evidence? I say there is no such evidence, indeed the evidence is that shouts of "Gunman" or "Fire" or "The Sky is Falling" causes no panic whatsoever.

The meme that shouting fire in a crowded theatre causes harm needs to be laid to rest together with the implicit restriction on free speech.

[kcr]

60. What?

"Your claim is that true claims would not be harmful in the same way" Huh? Where did I say that? I've said no such thing.

First of all, you start the thread about memes. I'd be willing to bet you that 9.5 times out of ten, when people pipe up with the whole fire in a theater thing, they don't even know who Holmes is. I wouldn't keep my hopes up too high about these meme ever dying. Second of all, they aren't being literal. They are making the point that 9.5 times out of ten I usually don't agree with either. But there's that .5 percent of the time I do, even if they aren't completely getting it 100% accurate, they're stating an opinion that I agree with. I do think it's a meme that should die, particularly because of its origins. But I think you should make a better argument.

[intaglio]

64. You are claiming that Holmes was correct in his assumption that the audience would panic

But Holmes contention rests upon the idea that only a false claim can cause harm; i.e. they can be differentiated from true claims which, presumably, do not cause harm or causes less harm.

My contention is that he made a false assumption and that this consistent refrain of the people who would impede freedom of speech needs to be discredited for the gibberish that it is.

In regard to panic and audiences you have changed your claim and now only 0.5% of audiences need to be affected.

Now, let me introduce you to Mr William Castle an entrepreneur and film maker who built his whole career on the idea that audiences don't panic - even if they have good reason to do so. I know you will claim, "Every body knew what they were in for" but they did not know and they did not panic.

[kcr]

65. Wow, with all these claims I'm making!

I think you need to stop assuming that every time someone brings up the fire in the theater business, they line up exactly with Holmes ruling word for word. Because I honestly don't think that's the case.

[intaglio]

70. So now you are saying that Holmes was incorrect

or only partially correct or what? Are you claiming that trope (if you do not like meme) is justification for the restriction of free speech or are you not?

Why do you seem to think that the example OWH used approached reality at any point. I have given examples where reality differs from the words and why I object to them being used; where are your counter examples?

[kcr]

75. Of course Holmes was incorrect

And where did I say I didn't like meme? Your other questions to me just don't make sense. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Look, basically it boils down to this. I think your taking the London roof colapse and using it as an argument to not use the theater meme is nonsense. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against it. One of them being educating people on how it came about. Point them to Holmes and his ruling. It might not convince everyone, but it would be a start. But people use that argument because they reasonably believe that people who start a panic on purpose should be prosecuted for it. So to them your argument logically doesn't make sense.

[intaglio]

80. OOOPS may well be, if so sorry

[GeorgeGist]

113. You're being deliberately dense.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic."

[intaglio]

114. And my point was that such a false claim would not induce panic

Given that true claims do not induce panic. Holmes' phrase has become at least a trope and in my view a meme to limit free speech and can lead people to object to certain speech just because it is deemed to be false. It is time to drop OWH's words and concentrate on real effects. Check the Hitchens videos.

In the examples that might have inspired OWH, for Italian Gardens the panic did not occur until after the exit and stairway became blocked and Royal Surrey Gardens it was likely that the initiating cry was actually fear induced by the massively overcrowded venue or perhaps the real collapse of a stairway banister.

[arcane1]

61. And exit doors didn't have those "panic bars" that they have now n/t

[Recursion]

18. It's a legal phrase that was used to justify jailing antiwar protestors

The argument was that protesting against America's involvement in World War One was comparable to starting a panic in a crowded theater.

[NYC Liberal]

20. Yep. And that decision was overturned many years ago.

[intaglio]

24. Nope, it was upheld by the Supreme Court under Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919

Or is there a court that can overturn the Supreme Court?

[NYC Liberal]

28. Yes: SCOTUS can reverse its own decisions in subsequent cases.

SCOTUS significantly limited the Schenck decision in Brandenburg v Ohio.

Schenck, in 1919, allowed restrictions on speech under the "clear and present danger" test.

Brandenburg required that speech must be likely to cause "imminent lawless action" to be restricted.

[intaglio]

36. Ah limited - not "overturned"

Sorry, but limits are not the same as overturning.

[NYC Liberal]

50. Yes, it was overturned. They threw out Schenck's very broad "clear and present danger"

standard -- which includes falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater -- and replaced it with a much more restrictive standard.

It is NOT illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater.

[intaglio]

39. I've mentioned the Christopher Hitchens lectures several times

Links below

As I note, I do not like where it leads but I do think that one limitation on free speech can be improperly applied to speech you think essential - such as civil rights.

[Lex]

47. WTH? It's not a "meme."

Jesus Christ. Read that case so you don't look ridiculous.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Two points

1.- last time I checked London England is not part of the United States. Therefore not subservient to US Constitutional law. Perhaps in an alternate reality it is, but not in this one. So if you are posting from that reality, my apologies.

2.- The phrase, not a meme, is part of judicial commentary iirc correctly written by USSC Judge Black, as part of a decision where somebody wanted to claim that as free speech. This actually led to a panic and a few people were hurt. Years later, there is an apocryphal story where a kid asked Judge Warren, well, what if there is an actual fire? Judge Warren, also of the Supreme Court, he was the Supreme Court Justice, said that if there was a fire she could indeed scream fire in the theater.

So no, it's not a meme. There is quite a bit of history behind it.

I should have read the thread, it was Holmes not Black.

[intaglio]

67. The point is not where the event took place

But the result of that event. I might be wrong but I do not regard Americans as being so different that they will panic where stoical Brits will not.

As to meme, I will say I was wrong and substitute trope, although I still contend it embodies a self perpetuating concept and method of thinking that it could be called a meme, it is an element that we need to breed out of our culture and assumption.

(OK breed is going too far)

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Lemme see, from the reports from the scene a warning was sounded

In the heat of the moment, which theater goers thought was part of the performance. What makes you think Fire would have had a more salutary effect?

Humans in emergency situations are indeed interesting critters. Believe it or not, sometimes having actual emergency workers going into a hotel where there is an active fire situation, with sirens and flashy lights outside, at times have problems evacuating saith place. And that is food for thought for you.

[intaglio]

86. I do not think a small fire would have any different affect

Your point about emergency services showing up actually supports my case about the lack of panic displayed by occupants of a site.

If a guest triggers the fire alarm in a theatre does that cause panic? or do people actually leave in an orderly fashion - if they can. Thank you for showing, again, that Oliver Wendell Holmes' example was a crock.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

66. That is a really bizarre conclusion to draw from this news event

And no....it is not in accurate. Many equivalent things have happened when someone caused panic under false pretenses and then people were injured or died.

The more relevant question is how many Americans were in the balcony. It could be engineers calculating load bearing had not counted on increased weight.

[intaglio]

88. Name one

of your "Many equivalent things have happened when someone caused panic under false pretenses and then people were injured or died,"

Does setting off a fire alarm cause mass panic? If not why should a freedom of speech be restricted on the basis of a false hypothetical case?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

105. Here's one

[Blue_Tires]

89. What does a USSC ruling have to do with a tragedy in England?

[intaglio]

94. For what feels like the umpteenth time

The USSC issued a judgment where the phrase where "falsely shout fire in a theatre" was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes as part of his reasoning for limiting free speech.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

120. Yes, because the cry was false

A cry of "fire" when there actually is one is proper behavior.

A false cry -- in which the assumption is that a panic will ensue -- is criminal.

[intaglio]

122. I have demonstrated that the assumption that the crowd will panic is false

You have just asserted it is true without evidence; you have not even looked at the little evidence for your contention I provided in other posts. Look for the video of Woody Guthrie.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

124. No, you have ASSERTED that the assumption that the crowd will panic is false.

You have demonstrated nothing, since you have one (1) example of a cry of fire not causing a panic. Are you familiar with the logical fallacy of the Hasty Generalization? Actually, a hasty generalization based on a single example is specifically called the Fallacy of the Lonely Fact.

I have been saying that a cry of fire in a crowded theater may cause a panic. Indeed, I will go further and say that it probably will cause a panic. That it does not always do so is not evidence that it will never do so.

For the umpteenth time, the point of both Justice Holmes in Shenck and Justice Douglas in Brandenburg was that the cry was FALSE, which is what made the cry criminal. Both assumed -- undoubtedly correctly -- that the false cry was intended to cause a panic. Even if a panic did not ensue, the intention is clear. It's like saying that an armed robber who does not actually manage to steal something should not be prosecuted for armed robbery.

[intaglio]

97. Actual panics and perhaps apologies to OWH

There are 2 cases which might have informed the trope used by the USSC

The Royal Surrey Gardens tragedy of 1856 and the Italian Gardens Disaster of 1913. In both it was claimed that the panic was started by some unknown person shouting fire. The crush that killed in both cases was facilitated by the terrible exits.

About the Royal Surrey Gardens incident. It seems there were over 10,000 people within the hall and probably the same number outside trying to get in. Although the cry of fire may have been used most of the panic seemed to be about the cry "the balconies are giving way," This was not the case though people did fall from the balcony so that might have been the stimulus. As with the Italian Gardens disaster deaths were actually caused by crushes on the stairs and at the exits which were blocked by people trying to get in. There were 7 dead and 28 seriously injured enough to let themselves be taken to hospital.

Italian Gardens was a terrible thing. A party at the upstairs room of this hall in Calumet had over 400 attendees. There was an unsignposted fire escape and ladders outside the windows on the back wall which were not visible. 20 of the surviving 300 or so said they heard a man shouting fire and the crowd tried to escape but only the very narrow front stairs were used. 73 died including 59 children. There is a Woody Guthrie song about it.

[rucky]

117. If it were in the US, he should have shouted "Bengazi!"