Replies

Absent a real fire, yelling "Fire" does not constitute Constitutionally-protected speech. It is closer to action, such as starting a real fire in the theatre.

I don't gather how shouting "Fire!" is more of an *action* than striking a match and holding it to "Old Glory". Both are designed to illicit a response from the surrounding crowd. I may not support a Constitutional amendment to make it illegal, but I'm more likely to punch someone in the nose for burning the Flag than I am for yelling "Fire!". My two cents, anyway.

It's different in a couple of ways--although I'll begin by noting that I don't think there should be ANY criminal law for speech, and that includes yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.

But that said, there are some major differences. For one, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre puts everyone in the theatre in imminent risk of harm from the panic which would ensue as everyone attempted to escape. Notice that it is yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, not an empty theatre. Falsely yelling "fire" is not inherently punishable--it is only yelling it when there is a serious risk of danger to the public that it is actionable by the state. Burning a flag does not endanger the public in any of the same sort of ways.
Second, there is no inherent political message in yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, and thus the speech isn't as "valuable" as burning a flag, which carries with it a political message designed to reach an audience to incite political change.

I don't know that I would say yelling "fire" is more akin to action, but there are certainly major differences.

I don't gather how shouting "Fire!" is more of an *action* than striking a match and holding it to "Old Glory"

Because yelling fire in a crowded theater can cause immediate harm to those around you. Burning a piece of cloth doesn't cause harm. It may make you mad, but it doesn't cause harm. The First Amendment doesn't protect speech or action that does harm. Burning a flag does neither. Really though I don't care what's advocated, I don't fly it in my front yard and I'm sure as heck not going to say a pledge to it. Of course I expect 'conservatives' to try to pass some Amendment on that next.

I don't gather how shouting "Fire!" is more of an *action* than striking a match and holding it to "Old Glory". Both are designed to illicit a response from the surrounding crowd.

Burning the flag is a pretty clear message- "I hate America."

What message does (falsely) claiming that there is a fire put forward?

I don't gather how shouting "Fire!" is more of an *action* than striking a match and holding it to "Old Glory". Both are designed to illicit a response from the surrounding crowd. I may not support a Constitutional amendment to make it illegal, but I'm more likely to punch someone in the nose for burning the Flag than I am for yelling "Fire!". My two cents, anyway.

I think you misunderstand just why shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected speech. It has nothing to do with the likelihood that you'll punch someone in the nose.

Shouting "Fire" is likely to start a stampede for the exits. That means a very real chance that a person could be injured as a direct result of the speech. Unless you can demonstrate a danger of physical injury (and no, bruised feelings don't count), then there is no grounds upon which to ban flag-burning.

Which is self-evident, by the way. If that was in any way applicable to flag-burning, these people wouldn't need an amendment to molest the First Amendment - they would already have done so.