Can you shout fire in a crowded theater? 

Another myth that isn't mentioned in this video is the "CROWDED theater" part of this often misquoted statement. What Oliver Wendell Holmes actually said was that free speech didn't include "falsely yelling 'fire' in a theater." He never said that the hypothetical "theater" had to be "CROWDED." Somehow along the way, the expression was changed to "yelling 'fire' in a crowded BUILDING," even though Holmes specifically said "THEATER," not "building." Apparently, some people can't even get their own myths and urban legends straight. Holmes did, however, say in the same Supreme Court decision mentioned here that certain forms of free speech can pose "a clear and present danger," and that too has become a part of our vocabulary, along with the "yelling 'fire' in a theater" quote, although it's questionable whether opposing the World War One draft (which was what this particular ruling was all about) really constituted a clear and present danger.

@@michaelpalmieri7335 Your comment is far too interesting not to apply some cognitive linguistics. (Which means it's orders of magnitude too interesting to fit in with RU-vid comment culture.) You're right. Let's look at what Holmes actually wrote. "But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force." at 52 (citation omitted). This is interesting. It's quite vague and general. Holmes doesn't write "publishing a pamphlet that questions whether the draft is consistent with the 13th Amendment is just like falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." It's what cognitive linguists call _metaphorical framing._ The metaphor is about the dangers of fire in theaters, which was a big thing. The central metaphor was probably the Brooklyn Theater fire of 1876. Some people were killed by the fire, and others were killed by being trampled in the panic. Note the dates: 1876 would have been within living memory and an exemplar of the _bad old days_ progressives were trying to fix. As Holmes did not make any semantic connection, there is no argument here, only a clear attempt to upset people. Although of course the fact that there really was a fire in the Brooklyn Theater, Holmes omitted that and included _falsely_ to cover his posterior, which word everybody, including later SCROTUS, ignored. The assumption of _crowded,_ which Holmes did not say, is interesting. People do this all the time, which functionally bends over for tyranny. Take the FBI video warnings. Most people ignore them. They think, "oh, this is just a personal copy; they won't go after me; it's not as if I'm one of those people who sells bootleg DVDs." They neglect the other use of such laws, which is to find some way to get political undesirables, which they deny happens, because it would be much too scary for them. I don't think we need even reach the World War I stuff, because the _clear and present danger_ standard extended half a century. It was probably most egregious in _Dennis_ during the 1950s. SCROTUS applied a kind of Pascal's wager, arguing that the destruction of the U.S. system of government would be so terrible that even a nugatory risk justified federal imprisonment. By that time it was clear that there was no pretense at all of the right to criticize the government. So for half of the 20th Century, what most people consider the main political purpose of the First Amendment, the right to criticize the government, was just plain gone. There was no dent made until _Brandenburg v. Ohio_ (1969), which didn't exactly get rid of the _clear and present danger_ standard but functionally drew it way back. Of course, the government now simply uses bogus accusations and physical torture to get rid of political critics, but that's way TLDR, and I cover it on my channel anyway.