The Man Who Shouts Fire In A Crowded Theater

Origin of the Phrase

The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was used by Democratic candidate Tim Walz in the Vice-Presidential debate to justify limitations on free speech. The phrase has its roots in the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated that it was wrong to "falsely" shout fire. This case was about the right to protest war and was later largely overturned, but the phrase has remained in use.

Understanding the Phrase

The phrase is used to illustrate a situation where someone knowingly causes panic when there is no real danger. For instance, if you are in a movie theater and someone starts shouting "Fire!" without any visible signs of a fire, it would likely cause panic. This action would be considered unethical as it involves lying and disruption.

Walz's Use of the Phrase

However, the analogy Walz uses to justify limiting free speech doesn't hold up well. The situations he would censor, such as public health or political claims, are not as straightforward as a fire in a theater. These issues are complex and require judgment and interpretation. They don't incite immediate panic, and people have time to consult, discuss, and reflect on these matters.

Contrasting Situations

The urgency of a man shouting fire in a crowded theater is not comparable to reading content on the internet or listening to a podcast. In the latter scenarios, individuals have the time and resources to form their own judgments. Even after years of deliberation, people may continue to have differing opinions on these complex issues, which is a stark contrast to the clear-cut situation of a fire in a theater.

Walz's Resemblance to the Shouter

In some ways, Walz's political rhetoric mirrors the man who shouts fire in a crowded theater. By claiming a significant danger, he incites people to align with a political program. However, unlike a sudden shout of "Fire!", people have time to reflect on his claims and use their moral and intellectual faculties to form their own opinions.

Bottom Line

Censorship often reveals more about the censor than the censored. The comparison of limiting free speech to shouting fire in a crowded theater is a flawed one. While the latter is a clear and immediate danger, the former involves complex issues that require time, discussion, and personal judgment. What are your thoughts on this analogy and its implications on free speech? Share this article with your friends and let us know your views. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is everyday at 6pm.