Please don't cite that example. Ken White, an attorney who focuses on first amendment issues, wrote a compelling argument for why: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

>First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.

The post doesn't appear to be disputing that the fire in a theater example is a legitimate illustration of the limits of speech under the first amendment. They just proceed from there to make a more general principle that this example can be invoked by people who intend to suppress speech. Which I also don't think is in dispute.

So I don't think that post has anything to do with anything, insofar as this comment thread is concerned.

It makes the point that saying "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" is not a helpful contribution to the discourse around free speech. And since this is a conversation about free speech, and the parent did exactly that, it is completely relevant. Using thought-terminating clichés should be avoided, even if they are technically correct in that particular circumstance.

>It makes the point that saying "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" is not a helpful contribution to the discourse around free speech.

It certainly does say that, and that's really broad and vague. And it's hard to keep track of this whole thread, but I'm pretty sure the branch we're on sprouted from a categorical claim that there are no "buts" when it comes to free speech. But your article doesn't dispute that there are exceptions, and so it's fair to invoke the fire in a crowded theater to illustrate the principle for that purpose.

For anything beyond that, the value and relevance will depend on what point is being made by whom and how well you are doing in your responsibility to interpret and respond to those charitably. But linking to a long blog post and vaguely warning that it's "bad" without doing any further work to connect that to a contention in any given comment is just confusing and unconstructive.

This was originally a metaphor used by a judge to support restricting the speech of anti-draft/anti-war campaigners. I don't think it's a good example of appropriate censorship.

I think these days you cannot operate a crowded theatre where people will get trampled if they're panicked by the thought of a fire. At least I hope not. That's the real problem with yelling fire. But people should stop using that example for other reasons others have mentioned anyway.

This is a terrible argument.

There are definitely places in a theater, out of the view of spectators, but likely fire hazards, e.g. the projection room.

Most building fires cannot be seen until it is too late. Smoke is an early indicator of a fire, but it cannot be seen in a pitch dark room.

And even in perfect conditions to determine if there is a fire or not, the audience may not be capable to judge if there is one or not, e.g. children.

"Should" is not a principle of law or of reality, for that matter.

I should be immortal, all knowing and beautiful but I'll have to make do with what nature gave me.