[rm_-rf_slash]

You are flat wrong.

If you shout fire in a crowded theater (in which there is no fire), and the crowd pushes and shoves to race to the exit (if it can happen at a Walmart on Black Friday it can happen in a theater where people don't want to burn to death), and people get injured or even killed, forget about morals, you could be liable for manslaughter.

[nileshtrivedi]

By banning shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, you also prevent people from warning you when there IS fire. Now you've created perverse incentives. I suspect there might be a fire, but will not speak up until it is too late.

Bad speech can be countered by MORE speech. Ban on speech cannot.

[rm_-rf_slash]

facepalm

Did you honestly believe I meant to say that people should not be warned about an actual fire?

[nileshtrivedi]

No, you didn't mean it. I'm saying that there is a trade-off involved in banning any speech. suspect is the key word.

[talmand]

Depends on intent. Your example of manslaughter would imply no initial intent to cause harm, therefore you are held responsible for the outcome and not what caused it. If you were to shout fire with the intent to cause death, then that would be premeditated murder. In that case you are held responsible for the outcome as well as what caused it.

Regardless, you certainly do have the First Amendment right to shout fire in a crowded theater (the quote everybody refers is bad law), the government will not actively try to prevent it; you just may have to deal with the legal consequences of using your right in such a way.