[icsllaf]

Isn't one of the main caveats of the first amendment that you can't say "Fire" or "Bomb" in a crowded theater?

As someone who watches live streams normally, it's weird to see the clashing of the online world with its disdain for social norms and encouragement of casual racism mix in with the normal day to day lives of people. A future where a good chunk of people walking on the streets are disconnected from the people around them and instead are trying to please a faceless mob which demands that life constantly be reality TV is a weird one to think about but I honestly believe that this is a future that is possible.

[mieseratte]

> Isn't one of the main caveats of the first amendment that you can't say "Fire" or "Bomb" in a crowded theater?

It's a complicated and, IMO, interesting topic.[0][1]

[0] - https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[1] - https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/06/fi...

[notafraudster]

I confess to having read the Popehat link quickly (I do not have audio right now to be able to listen to the podcast) and it is possible I missed some subtext, but the link seems more to speak to that the quote was made in a context many today would find disagreeable as part of a series of bad rulings, and that it has subsequently often been invoked to support restrictions on speech as though the existence of some restriction on speech automatically justifies others. Both points are well taken.

But this is quite literally a situation where a person shouts about a fake threat so as to cause alarm in a crowded fora -- the article does not seem to argue that doing so would be legal or that it would not be a permissible restriction on speech.

So I defer to anyone who knows more than I do about speech law -- to be clear, it is still impermissible to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater, right?

[mieseratte]

> it is still impermissible to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater, right?

The underlying point is that, it's a complicated topic that is not easily answered. This is like saying "Shooting someone is illegal, right?" Well, it's complicated. You have Murder 1, Murder 2, (sometimes more), Manslaughter (Voluntary, or Involuntary), and you have shootings of self-defense which are legal. It entirely depends on the circumstances under which you shout "Fire!" and the outcome of that situation.

There are legal principles involving whether or not you caused harm, whether or not you intended to cause harm, whether or not you reasonably knew it could cause harm but proceeded anyway. These questions will have outcome on which charges are applicable, if any are at all.

Should you shout fire in a crowded theater, and folks stampede. Expect to be charged for inciting a riot or at least disturbing the peace. Should nothing happen? You might be asked to leave and not come back by staff and have a no-trespass order, you may even get picked up on a disturbing the peace charge. One of the "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" situations.

[pjc50]

> weird to see the clashing of the online world with its disdain for social norms and encouragement of casual racism mix in with the normal day to day lives of people.

This is most likely to be resolved by normal life increasing in its disregard for norms and explicit racism, until someone gets lynched for the benefit of streaming hits.

[13years]

It is not quite literal that you can't say "Fire" etc

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

There are however issues that are not related to just speech. There are property rights issues for the owner of the establishment if you create panic, which results in damages to people or property.

For example there is likely no literal law against the following; however, you would likely be at similar fault if you walked into a crowded theatre with a live hornets nest. It is not so much what you say, but the damage which results you would be responsible for.