@@ViableGibbon In the movie JFK Kevin Costner’s character is based on a real New Orleans prosecutor named James Garrison. He was branded one of the most corrupt prosecutors in the country and intentionally convicted and imprisoned many innocent people. He was finally voted out of office by Harry Connick Jr. Dad.
I had always assumed that whenever people said "you can't yell fire in a theater" they specifically meant when you know there isn't one and wanted to intentionally cause a panic. Not that it's just outright forbidden in all circumstances.
It is what everyone means. Plus with the addition of getting kicked out. It doesn't matter what you yell the theater has the right to kick you out. And most people agree this is a acceptable infringement on the 1st amendment. It's not a public space. That being said, I'm going to yell "fire" everytime a movie has a fire in it.
Sure, but over time that extra context knowledge can get lost. For instance, "My country, right or wrong" has lost people's knowledge of the rest of the quote, "if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” It wasn't meant to be a statement of "I stand behind my country regardless of what it does", but a promise to work at improving the country and acknowledging when it does wrong.
Yeah, for real that was the stupidest thing I've heard Legal Eagle say. I think people understand that example means that conduct that causes immediate danger and harm can be regulated even if the conduct is speech. I'm preparing for a future of "um actually" legal takes in response to what has always been a straightforward example of how the consequences of speech can be regulated.
I always took "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" as a metaphor for inciting panic for malicious reasons. Aka, trying to cause harm via inciting panic. Crowd crushes are a thing which definitely lead to injury and death. I never took it that you couldn't yell "FIRE" in a theater ever.
It was specifically a metaphor for publishing pamphlets arguing against World War I encouraging men to resist the draft. The danger here was that the US government would not be able to send enough men to die in one of the dumbest wars in history, one which we had absolutely no business fighting,
if you're scared by words, you're ridiculous. If someone warns of danger, I need to see the so-called "danger" myself and make a conclusion as to whether that "danger" warrants me leaving my seat, which I paid for, to a movie which is still ongoing, if I am still enjoying it. If the mention of a single word leads to people getting trampled to death, they deserve it for being senseless morons who only rely on what others say rather than their own judgements. Maybe it's harsh, but I find the image of hundreds of people getting killed because of some guy's falsities to be hilarious.
@@zerotwoisreal ok, counter point: you can be killed ON YOUR SEAT by other people being scared. Like, they can try to go over your seat (you know, trying to leave as fast as possible), throwing you to the ground in the process, and then other people run over your body, killing you. Done, a "smart person" died because someone made people believe they were in danger and they panicked. Plus, you know that the fire alarm is basically just "someone saw fire and pushed the alarm button", right? By your definition of "being smart" every person on the building shouldn't leave until they either saw the fire or another evidence of fire THEMSELVES. And that's not a smart way to react if the building is on fire. The problem is not that people are "dumb" and believe there's fire. The problem is that people panic. What's your next argument?
@@tbotalpha8133to paraphrase something Hbomberguy once said; when you stop trying to provide a valid defence to an argument and are instead arguing for your right to say it, things have gone terribly wrong
@@KangarooKommando I heard it phrased as: "If the only way you can defend your position is by pointing out that it's not strictly illegal, then it's a bad position."
@tbotalpha8133 That's a silly argument, there's no such thing as strictly legal, it's illegal or not illegal. More importantly that perspective asserts that anything which is presently illegal should not morally be argued in favor of. That would mean the position of abolitionist was wrong, even when they ensured slaves remained free who escaped on technicalities and tenuous law.
This video reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag." - Molly Ivins
@@internetguy7319 more its interpreted poorly by shit people. but I get what u mean, sadly the people that would change it are the exact people u don't want doing so.
I think the context for Holmes' quote was the Italian Hall Disaster, not the Iroquois or another theater fire. On Christmas Eve, 1913, striking copper mine workers had pooled their resources to make sure the community's children a good meal and a Christmas present after suffering shortages due to their parents striking for most of the past year. While 400 people were packed into the second floor at the top of a steep set of stairs, a strike buster shouted "fire" then blocked the exit doors. The ensuing crush killed 73 people, 59 of which were children. I think this was Holmes' context, and I'm pretty sure that setting up a trap to murder dozens of children on Christmas Eve in order to break a strike isn't protected speech. But I think the context has been lost or ignored, and the popular use of the phrase truly misses the point.
Yeah, I never assumed that it had anything to do with 1A. I didn’t know the historical context (thank you!), but always assumed that it had something to do with using some type of inflammatory speech (no pun intended!) deliberately to produce a negative (harmful/chaotic/injurious) reaction. I think most jurisdictions have some kind of law against “incitement”.
The best part about the "you can't desecrate the flag" people is that they turn a blind eye to merchandizing the [censored] out of it by putting it on disposables, undergarments, and such... which actually is considered to be "disrespectful to the flag" according to 4 U.S. Code § 8.
I would argue that those aren't "flags" as defined in the US Flag Code. What's on disposables, undergarments, etc. are just representations of the flag--not actual U.S. flags. Depends how "flag" is defined in the Code, though.
Our natural First and Fourth Amendment rights supercede all illegal, Unconstitutional codes and laws. The People's Constitutional Amendments listing our natural rights stand above all else. That code is illegal, because it violates The People's First and Fourth Amendments.
@@alexmason5521 The only "law" i'm aware of is 18 U.S. Code § 700. Which was born entirely out of Mccarthyism, mostly as a attempt at trying to silence protests. Its been completely dismantled by the supreme court as being unconstitutional. Flag codes aren't enforced by civ law in general. All that aside nothing wrong with burning the flag in protest, if anything its the ultimate representation of what that flag is supposed to stand for.
I teach Constitutional Law in our high school. Every case you cited is taught in my class. The students are always shook when they learn these myths in my class. Thank you for clarifying these issues.
Good on you for teaching your students about these cases. My HS teacher did the same and it changed my view of the world. I found myself appreciating this nation more.
Now you play this and grab a bathroom break? Idk if you're allowed to leave the room with students in it anymore. I was lucky enough to have my schools be safe places and not shooting galleries.
@erikk77 please be public, please be public, please be public! We plebs need everyone as educated as we can make them and it seems to be more lacking in the public arena.
Pretty sure they do. But you can't spin out youtube content by saying _"Hey, you know that figure of speech we all use? Turns out it's true as a figure of speech, but not literally."_
Exactly. Usually people use that example without referring to 1st amendment, to illustrate that knowingly reckless speech that leads to harm would not be without potential legal consequences
They don't. I guarantee you that if polled, most Americans would say it's illegal. Most people don't know the law, or the Constitution. You guys are just miffed that he mocked a political ally. The woman was advocating for restricting Constitutionally protected speech based on her own moral framework; which should be offensive enough. Instead, let's just focus on what people really think about yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
I mean, I don’t know anyone who thinks you literally can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre under any circumstances. It’s always just shorthand for “you can’t deliberately incite a panic”
In my experience the phrase is used in most discussions regarding free/hate speech and they always use as an example for when censorship is acceptable. This video is honestly the first time I've ever come across someone saying it means to not incite a panic.
@@Pumbear More generally, it is shorthand for not being able to use speech that is intended to cause or incite physical harm (not that much unlike the fighting words doctrine). As an example, I think it isn't that bad. The legal history of the example was cool to hear, but that doesn't make it a bad example for laypersons. The phrase gets used by people who want to ban hate speech because many of them think that hate speech falls in that category. However, as Legal Eagle eloquently points out, it does not. When confronted with someone using the fire in a theater example as an argument for banning hate speech, I usually point out that if someone actually thinks there is a fire then it is absolutely protected by the Constitution.
@@Evangelionism thanks for that completely irrelevant comment. I’m sorry that you lost an argument with someone and can’t let it go but randomly bringing it up and being passive aggressive about it just makes you look like a sore loser.
As a child, my mother said YELL FIRE if I needed attention or help from perceived danger. Explaining later, people will hear FIRE more than help help, which is used at all times including tickling! 🤔 Smart Lady
In my country just scream maling(thief) and ppl will come And if is it really a thief ppl will certainly become thugs and making that thief almost going to hospital until police come
This reminds me of a funny story Oscar Wilde told about bravery: During a play a panic went up in the audience about a fire and people pushed and shoved to get to the one doorway. An actor told every one to sit back down, saying all they had to fear was their own reaction. Once everyone sat back down, the actor jumped off the stage and ran out screaming through the freed-up doorway.
i saw Phantom of the opera when it came to my city. afterwards, some of the stage hands, had a cool thing with a small amount of people that was talking about things that had happened during the show at other theaters. during the show, there were some pyrotechnics, and the next show during a scene change there was apparently some settled smoke (i.e. some smoke from the previous show that was kicked up during the scene change) some people thought there was a fire and the entire theater calmly and quietly evacuated the theater, and the cast didnt realise what had happened untill the lights went down for the next scene change. iirc this happened in either Canada or a Midwestern state like Minnesota
My grandfather once told me, "People think the most important thing in life is to watch your wallet. It's not. It's to watch your health." So there I was watching my health, and someone stole my wallet! It was my grandfather.
The most ironic part of the flag desecration laws is that the vast majority of those who cry about flag burning or flag desecration are the exact same people who consistently violate the U.S. Flag Code by wearing the flag as clothing, displaying the flag on bedding or napkins or other things that get filthy and/or thrown away, desecrating the flag themselves with blue lines and Punisher logos, and flying flags on their pickup trucks, SUVs, or homes that are frayed, torn, or otherwise being displayed in poor repair.
Or putting a blue line on it. 4 U.S. Code § 8 - R (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
I was taught that when a flag cannot be repaired or cleaned, the respectable thing to do is burn it instead of toss it. This is from patriotic (in the Captain America sense, not the Punisher sense) military members. I was so confused because I always heard that burning the flag was considered desecration. I find the contradictory dichotomy of proper flag protocols to be a bit perplexing. As a result, I’ve opted to just not buy any USA flags or paraphernalia. I figured it was better to be safe than sorry. The star-spangled-banner has never really appealed to my aesthetic anyway.
@@MiraBoo You’re correct. When an American flag is in disrepair or poor condition, the flag is to be burned. The VFW will do take care of it (for free) if you’re uncomfortable doing it.
@@MiraBoo I can attest (at least in my own branch of service) that we have been taught the ceremonial burning of the flag bearing it's retirement is correct and the preferred method of disposal. However, my first experience with this happened during my association with the Boy Scouts of America, in which we were taught the same thing. According to legaleagle however, the video appears to claim there is no legal precedent (such as ceremonious burning) and it's fine to just do it, protected even. Unfortunately, the line between what is strictly legal and publicly accepted seems to be very blurry and that's probably where a lot confusion takes place.
Im confused. I thought the unspoken implication behind the fire in a crowded theater thing was "you can't knowingly incite a riot without a good reason". Are there really people out these who literally think it means "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EVER"?
I doubt it tbh, I mean probably at least one person but the vast majority of people understand it in the metaphorical sense I'm not sure why anyone would reasonably come to the conclusion Kathy Hochul in particular meant it literally, like she has a law degree and worked as a lawyer ???
@@zenaku666 Sadly, I've met several people who would take it literally. In fact, I've met many people who would believe all of the myths mentioned in this video.
People keep saying/hearing statements like that without the implication and it takes on a life of its own. Like when actual quotes get simplified and/then misattributed. The original gets forgotten and only the new version is proliferated. Look at other sayings like: one bad apple spoils the whole bunch; and how it has turned into: it's just one bad apple, nothing to worry about. Totally goes against the actual saying's meaning, but people shortened it and implied the rest until it was forgotten and replaced and now here we are.
I've always assumed the "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" was just another way of saying "don't incite a false panic". Obviously you'd be within your rights to yell fire if there was an actual fire, but I always thought it was talking about someone trying to 'prank' the theater-goers by yelling 'fire' when there is no fire. Like yelling 'bomb' in an airport or on an airplane when there isn't one.
I always thought it had to do with "stealing" the movie-going experience from people who payed for tickets. Making people evacuate seemed like more of an annoyance than an actual crime. I also thought it could have something to do with wasting firefighter resources if someone calls 911.
Please don't give the TikTokers any ideas for new "pranks." I can already see it now: "The 'fire in a theater' challenge is going viral on social media, but is it stupid, wrong, dangerous, and protected by the Constitution? Experts weigh in after the break."
@@kl8062 it may be protected by the Constitution, but being crushed to death by people fleeing because they yelled fire is not. Always consequences to actions, and it’s sad people just don’t seem to get that.
What is penalized is the deception, aka fraud. Fraud always causes people to act in a matter they wouldn't otherwise act. In the case of the people of the theater leaving. In the case of the firefighters, moving personnel, In the case of the theater, having to issue a refund. etc. Speech is not the crime. FRAUD is the crime. Speech is just the vehicle for the fraud.
Kathy Hochul also took the right to repair bill that passed overwhelmingly and let corporations edit it as they wishes and signed the exact edit, word for word they provided her. They added a bunch of loopholes for themselves. She let corporations write the law. Just so you know where her interests are at.
In Canada a man was arrested for flipping the bird at someone he did not like and was charged with making a threat. The court threw out the case stating, "flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter-enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian." Got to love that judge for his good judgment.
He technically wasn't arrested for giving the middle finger. He was arrested for death threats and harassment. However, it came out in the trial that no death threats were made and that the worst that happened was some curse words as well as the use of the middle finger. Obviously cussing out someone isn't a crime and the judge rightly ruled that the we all have the right to give someone the finger. So let us all celebrate by giving the finger.
Depending on where you are, and where you are from, in Norway, "hæstkuk" and "trekuk" (rude variant of horse-penis and tree-penis) is acceptable to call a police officer. The rude variant of Vagina-face is not accepted however.
He has clearly been rehabilitated to become a productive member of our society. Proving that focusing on rehabilitation might be a viable option. He became a lawyer, even after such a serious crime and time.
The Venn diagram of ‘people who are desperate to criminalise flag code violations’ and ‘people whose entire decor and aesthetic is flag code violations’ is a circle.
I once corrected my uncle on flag code because he’s one of those people, and his response was because he had been in the military and I never had been, I wasn’t allowed to correct him.
The Italian Hall Disaster that happened here in Michigan was a likely company man who falsely yelled fire during a workers union christmas party for copper miners children. 73 people died. That was a perfect example of a crime of causing panic.
Was just about to post basically the same thing. Apparently, we need to start defining degrees of "settled law," because settled doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean anymore.
I always find it funny how many police officers, HR directors and politicians tell people things about the law that aren’t true such as when HR tells you in a meeting at work that you are not allowed to discuss your salary with other employees, a corporate policy that violates labor laws.
I'm not from the US but I always thought that "shouting fire" is exactly about inciting a panic without there being a fire. Not literally about just shouting "fire".
I wonder if anyone took the “can’t yell fire in a theater” thing to mean they literally couldn’t. I know that’s how it’s casually said, but I always through it was obvious that it was shortened down and clearly meant not yelling fire for no reason and causing chaos. Was that actually not obvious to most people? Were the majority of people out there thinking they would go to jail if there was a fire and yelled it? Seriously?
No, that's just Devin being a pedantic lawyer in a youtube video, and exaggerating peoples opinions for dramatic effect. I've no doubt there's a few nuts that took the phrase literally, but just about every other comment in this video is an attempt to question Devins literal stance.
Yes ofcourse people do as the phrase is rather obtuse. The issue is with purposefully inciting a panic, but the phrase is only used in regards to free speech issues.
Participate in a 2nd amendment debate and wait for people to use the fire in a crowded theater to emphasize "rights aren't absolute" without any awareness of irony to what they're saying.
I worked in movie theatres for a long time. While not illegal, it isn't wise to talk about fire in a crowded movie theatre, so we had a code we would use, instead of saying "there's a fire in the theatre" we were told to say "there's a kitty in the theatre" so as not to frighten the patrons. An occasional "kitty" in the popcorn popper, no big deal - smother it, throw out the blackened popcorn, move on. Then one time the motor that raised the curtain (old, fancy showplace) seized up and caught fire. One of the new ushers noticed the smoke and investigated, then came running to the boss: "Mr. Manchan - there's a kitty in the theatre behind the screen!" Boss doesn't react -- I guess the code didn't connect or something, so the usher tries again: "There's a kitty behind the screen, and it's on fire!" We grabbed a fire extinguisher and put out the fire while the previews were running, pulled the plug on the motor, and let it ride until closing. Good times!
If I spotted a real fire in a theater, I would immediately tell a theater employee about it so that the employee could do something about the fire. I wouldn’t want to scream and panic because panicking doesn’t solve the problem at hand.
The 1970s were a magical moment where the Southern Strategy heavily relied on Evangelicals want to pretend that they were better than godless commie scum and they made certain compromises to feel better, and Newt Gingrich's revolution under Clinton started to disantle them like clockwork. That Biden and Hillary were willing to support certain parts of it shows the Democrats were very aware what percentage of their voters didn't liked being called a racist publicly. Based on my European experiences people who voted Obama then Trump only voted for Obama for jobs and zero of his policies. Now that Russia and China are no longer open to interpretation if they're friend or foe many can pretend it's the 1950s again.
@@cutebabyseal621 So you’re not keeping up with their rulings ? They chose not to take a case where the police arrested somebody put them in jail before realizing that it was constitutionally protected speech. But the Supreme Court said he had no remedy. You should focus on your guys instead of pointing at the other guys and ignoring your guys
If they overturn First Amendment protections, there will rapidly be issues with a ton of statements made by the political right, not just the left. If they make it illegal to burn the U. S. flag because it's inciting rebellion against the government, it would _definitely_ be illegal to fly the Confederate flag. The law cuts both ways.
@@cavemanfreak But theres no law saying you can't purposefully create panic, just not purposefully incite lawless activity. That's not saying it would be allowed or anything, just that there's no law against it. I think Devin's right here.
@@cavemanfreak not just that, the next section he mentions a quote where someone says "hate speech isn't free speech," but it's clear the author wasn't talking about the legal concept of "free speech." They were saying hate speech incurs a social cost, not that hate speech is illegal.
This brings up an interesting point. There are several fundamental differences in how German and US law handle these things. In no particular order: - first and most importantly, there are a number of rules that in the US restrict government, but in Germany restrict everyone. - We generally don't call it "hate speech".The probably most similar concept is _Volksverhetzung_ _Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement to hatred" (used also in the official English translation of the German Criminal Code),[1][2] "incitement of popular hatred", "incitement of the masses", or "instigation of the people", is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population _*_and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them,_*_ including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.[1][2][3]_ - Apropos of that, just like the first amendment calls out a number of important rights, so does the German constitution. But it does have one right the first amendment lacks: the right to human dignity. This has far-reaching consequences. It restricts what drill sergeants or the cops may do, but also leads to insults not being legal - they're in the same class as libel and slander, all of which are considered to violate that rule. Like in the US, public figures and officials have to accept lesser protections.
I have heard of some of that, but it's all very interesting taken together. My question is whether that last matter is generally accepted by most of the public in Germany, or if it is hotly contested? I can imagine everyone is okay with their own human dignity being unassailable, but are there groups out there angry that they must play some game of words in order to speak against their opponents without "insulting" them as interpreted by the law? Edit: I read your statement more closely and realize you said "segments of the population". Are these segments any sort of category, including political faction, or is it generally restricted to identity categories (such as race, sex, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Then again, in Germany it’s forbidden to deny the holocaust or say some other socially unacceptable things. Granted, nothing of value is lost there, but it’s a serious restriction of free speech that is not based on actual incitement of violence.
@@xhelloselm Those Holocaust denier laws highlight the fundamental difference in speech freedom between our countries. Germany just does not believe in free speech. The U.S. is all about free speech, and quite specifically for unpopular or offensive speech. And the US can not have laws against hurting people's feelings by merely saying things. This is because we do not believe it is possible to trust the government to decide what those limits are. (However, there can be civil actions between individuals for inflicting emotional distress under some situations.)
@@cstacy You hit on the most critical thing here, we CAN NOT trust the government to restrict OUR rights in a way that is beneficial to US. If the government can decide what hate speech is then they WILL label anyone who speaks out against them as a hate group. If the government can decide who is mentally unstable and shouldn't be allowed to wield a firearm then they WILL label anyone who disagrees with them as mentally unstable (happens all the time).
@@cstacy “Government” is composed of our elected representatives and executives. Not monarchs. If we knowingly vote in people like that, that’s on the voters for choosing it.
I think when people say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" it's assumed the individual is doing so in bad faith to start a panic. So the essence of the point is still correct.
In most cases, people get fixated on only one portion of a statement instead of the intention of the whole. People love to skip the qualifier in the statement because it allows them to manipulate it to their choosing.
How many can you name off the top of your head? - ...spoils the bunch - ...but satisfaction brought it back - ...of the covenant... of the womb - ...master of none Of course, @Craig Johnson above has the winner.
@@williameldridge9382 It's also not a bunch of weekend warriors who think all it takes to stop an MBT is a sixgun and a US flag. There's a reason the National Guards were created and there's a reason why the US actually does have a standing military despite the founders' problems - and that's not the least that over time, John Doe plumber wasn't willing to put in the time and effort needed to have a functioning militia of otherwise civilians.Have a chat with some people from Switzerland. They do still have a citizens' army. But that means that able-bodied people need to take substantial time out of their professional lives in regular intervals so as to keep up to specs being able to operate in an effective military force capable of defending the country.
@@GSBarlev just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and then you don't need to finish the rest of the sayings or think about what they are saying... It's easy!
The Espionage Act is one of the best example of government overreach ever. Has it ever been used to prosecute a foreign agent or citizen colluding with foreign agents? Please do a video on the Espionage Act!
Read up on the Doll Lady, who worked for Japan, the prostitution ring the Navy busted in San Diego in 1943 that was based out of Mexico and financed by Japan, there was an American held in Belleview in New York who spied for Germany. As for governmental overreach, oh boy. Operation Waterback deported US citizens, breaking the legal obligation Roosevelt gave them, every tribal contract ever, and mly favorite, abusing the 13th Amendment's prisoner exclusion to continue to enslave people for existing while black or brown and get presidential pardoned, and still try to run Maricopa County again.
7:43 But isn't that exactly what people are insinuating when they say "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre?" I doubt anyone thinks there's a blanket ban on that word in that building, but use it as an idiom to refer to deliberately causing a panic that will likely lead to considerable harm.
Yeah, I was kind of confused by the first one. He calls it a myth, but at the end just lists a few exceptions when you can yell fire even though there isn't a fire, situations that are outside of the implied scenario.
I've seen so many people online that have no clue on how the first amendment works and how they can sue a company like twitter for limiting hate speech in their platform. This video is very informative and even pointed people to this video on what free speech protects and what it doesnt.
OBJECTION: I think when people say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", they aren't saying that there is a magic spell that makes you go to jail if you say the word fire. I think what they're saying is "you can't (maliciously, falsely) yell fire in a crowded theatre (which would create a dangerous situation)", which you basically agree is correct. Rare weird strawman from this channel, you're usually more rhetorically honest.
I think he's actually giving a mathematician's answer, rather than creating a strawman (I've seen idiots argue that you can get arrested for yelling fire in a crowded place, more than a dozen separate times, so it's a position that actually exists): it's technically correct (you can't get arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre) but also useless (it's entered shorthand as an idiom that means doing something to cause a panic, you could "modernize" it to "shouting "this guy has a gun!!!" in a school right on the tail of a bunch of high-coverage school shootings").
The second point is also very weird, because the perspective he gives at 10:10 is a very American attitude. He admits that other countries restrict hate speech... and then he pretends it's impossible to do fairly? Maybe I've missed something, but I don't think we're exactly living in a dictatorship up here in Canada, nor is it an Orwellian dystopia across the pond in Germany. I can't even take seriously his implication that hate speech laws (or any laws) are interpreted by politicians. Judges aren't even elected on any level in most countries.
@@neoqwerty but like... You CAN get arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre if that's false and causes a stampede and kills a bunch of people. It's just a true thing that can happen, which highlights the limits of the protections of free speech. Like, the idea that people who misinterpret free speech get across is "I can never be arrested for simply saying words" and the crowded theatre example is saying "here's a way you can be arrested for saying words". You would be arrested for involuntary manslaughter or something, and you couldn't say "but first amendment" as a defense.
Definitely. I really think when most people say, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," they are are imagining exactly the set of circumstances given in the video for when it is in fact illegal; there is no fire and your intent is to create a dangerous panic. I don't think most people actually think you can't yell fire if there is a fire, as part of the performance, etc., they're just using "you can't yell fire" as a shorthand.
@@migmit Yeah, but you know how the law gets when it comes to functioning brains. It has to be really specific for those without them...such as politicians.
I think the biggest misconception about free speech is that a LOT of people (mostly conservatives, influencers, and conservative influencers tbh) view free speech as a defense from public criticism. Which it is not. Free speech specifically relates to the government, and doesn’t prevent individuals from saying “this take is colder than the Antarctic, L + ratio + no bitches”. Edit: people seem to have missed my point, but I guess that’s just free speech at work! Another win for free speech, I guess.
Precisely. They view speech as not really free unless they're guaranteed a positive reception, and they think that a negative one is truly trampling on their speech rights.
Getting hounded by a screeching mob of antifa terrorists isn't criticism. Neither is people trying to get you fired because they don't like what you said, doxxing or all the dozens of other things the cult of woke (and unfortunatly an increasing number of others) tends to do to people that dare to disagree with their orthodoxy.
Hey LE and viewers! Another reason people were nervous in theaters was because of the Italian Hall tragedy in Calumet, MI. In 1913 someone falsely yelled fire! and 73 people died. They never did find out who was responsible.
We might not know which hired thug(s) caused that massacre of striking workers and their families, but it's no mystery which robber barons arranged it.
I'm glad youtube clarified their own stance on speech with regards to monetization, because being able to watch this video without it being constantly bleeped was fantastic :D
The biggest reason movie theaters of that era caught on fire so easily was because the film was made of cellulose nitrate which was extremely flammable. Passing through the inside of a hot projector would at times catch on fire.
It also applied to theatres, not just movie ones. (candle props were VERY common). Also to both, IIRC the documentary I read about regulatory safeties for theatres and movie theatres, there was also a resurgence of it when electricity got common and lightbulbs caused much of it.
In Calumet,Michigan. Someone yelled fire at a Christmas party in 1913. There was no fire and 74 people mostly children trampled each other and died trying to escape the Hall. Someone yelled fire on purpose, and there was no other way out. Whoever yelled fire was never solved. The crime remains unsolved. Today it’s called the Italian hall disaster.
Actually the crowd at the car race did shout F*** joe Biden. However a news reporter interviewing Brandon deliberately changed it to Let's Go Brandon even though it was clear to everyone it was the former. Let's go Brandon is a much more effective "calling cry" because it is F*** joe Biden plus highlights the media's role in twisting the truth
@@sackofclams953 Which itself is dumb. They think "the media" was trying to cover it up, but the fact is that when those guys are on a stage with earpieces on, it is really hard to hear or understand what a crowd is chanting. Plus, the driver on stage was named Brandon. As usual, Trump supporters get themselves wound up over the dumbest shit and make it their rally call.
I've always loved this quote from The American President... "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
honestly, I always thought the "don't shout fire in a theater" meant using an emergency situation to cause a false panic. I compare this to the story of "the boy who cried wolf"
You can shout fire in a theater. You just may civilly liable for any damages caused in the ensuing panic. But you can't be arrested just for saying it.
3:06 this might actually have something to do with actual incidents of fatal crowd crushes which can indeed happen over fire alarms. In the Theatre Royal disaster in 1849, a small fire broke and was extinguished - but because of the panic (and because theatres of that day were so badly designed), it caused a crowd crush that killed dozens of people. If someone had *falsely* shouted about a fire you’d have an argument for some kind of manslaughter there.
same but evidentially we are being led to believe a significant amount of people take it literally? Like I get LegalEagle is joking around, but seriously who thinks "yelling fire in a crowded theater" in that context literally means you can't ever yell the word fire in a theater?
As a non American that first story boggled me too. People in the modern age still can't determine if the language used was meant to be contextual instead of literal? And then I remember Twitter...
@zenaku666 the statement is a summary. The full opinion probably spans thousands of words over many pages of paper. The funny thing is is that protesting the draft is the kind of political speech that I think the 1st Amendment was intended to protect in the first place.
@@andriaching3735 A good portion of America holds the belief that anything that isn't expressly illegal is moral and the reverse is true where if something is immoral it's most likely illegal. So since the false fire call is immoral, many believe it's automatically illegal. I hope that provides some context?
Being a person who sometimes goes to live theatre performances in Chicago, I paused the video to look up the Iroquois Theater incident. The theater had only opened a month before the disaster and reopened after repairs. The theater was in violation of fire codes for theaters in Chicago which require a separate stairway for each level of the theater (I noticed that when I went to a show this week and had seats in the dress circle level (the middle one of three levels). Anyway, the repaired theater reopened and continued to operate until 1926 when it closed and was torn down. A new theater opened in the same space a few years later and for decades was name the Oriental theater until the naming rights were sold recently and it is now the Neaderlander theater. I will be attending Tina there next week.
This is great! The only thing I'd caution people about in regards to hate speech is that while the speech itself is protected, it's a thin line where you can still be arrested for it under the fighting words doctrine that allows government to limit speech when it is likely to incite immediate violence or retaliation by the recipients of the words.
I think that alone would make for a really interesting video, given the increasingly retributive response from groups who don't want any language they find "hateful" used. I'm sure it varies wildly by state. It makes you wonder where the limits really are with respect to the law. Like, if I walk into a small store in the middle of an argument and yell "I will beat the shit out of the next person who says the word 'lemons'," is someone guilty of inciting retaliation if they just yell 'lemons!' back at me? What if I said the next person who speaks at all? Or does the incite have to directly attack something covered under a protected class?
I have slept for 10,000 years! The gavel of influential people misinterpreting the law has rudely awaken me from my long slumber! Now I must completely eviscerate them with facts and logic... Except actually using facts and logic, unlike Ben Shapiro.
@@MsSgent it's actually encouraging to hear. My reading suggested that there's nothing outright saying I can't become a lawyer but that the bar does a sort of morality check which makes the odds pretty heavily stacked against me.
(3:10) For anyone who is curious, that is the fire at the Cine Teatro Ópera in Mexico City on June 25, 1970. Special lights were brought in for a benefit that happened earlier in the night and the horrific wiring job set the roof on fire. No one was in the theater at the time, so there was no one to scream "fuego". The theater was rebuilt and eventually went defunct in the 1990s after the city closed it down because of a brawl that happened during a rock concert. While technically not "abandoned", it is currently highly-favored among urban explorers.
I think the best way to sum up the First Amendment is you can say whatever you want according the court of law but don't be shocked when the court of public opinion finds you guilty. Just because you can say something doesn't mean it doesn't carry any consequences.
Interesting video. In my American history 101 class, I've discussed the Schenk case. I've never taken the yelling fire in a crowded theater part of the Judge Holmes' opinion literal. I've compared that statement to calling in a bomb threat and then trying to use speech to get out of the consequences of doing it. I'm also glad he mentioned the concept of free speech doesn't apply to private businesses as many erroneously believe. I also talk in my class about the legal definition of free speech vs. the principle of it, dating back to the Enlightenment era. Free speech principle was meant to prevent persecution of an individual and prevent silencing of ideas that offended people or threatened those in power. Many people today say obscene, false, and despicable things. It's important to distinguish between free speech in the legal sense and free speech in the public sphere. People also have a right to criticize and ostracize those whose speech they disagree with.
Free speech means the government can't stop you from saying something. Not that there won't be any consequences to doing it. People seem to regularly get that confused.
This was an informative video but I think that anyone using the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" is implicitly saying that you can't falsely yell "fire" with the intention of creating panic and causing harm. That seems pretty obvious to me, since spelling it out exactly takes a lot more words
Same. It never occurred to me that someone might think talking about fire would be illegal or saying the name of a movie that contains the word "fire" would be illegal or that a comedian couldn't say fire or anything other than intentionally creating panic and harm while knowing there is no need to panic.
I always thought the "hate speech is not free speech" wasn't saying that hate speech is illegal, but rather that the cost of hate speech is paid by someone else. Like their safety, their liberties, their general well-being. I'm pretty sure that's what the tweet was getting at too.
I think you're right that Devin wasn't catching this as a turn of phrase, but overall I think the point he was trying to make is generally true-that people are making the claim that hate speech in the US is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In the open-source computer software world, there is a small culture of stating "free gratis" and "free libre" in order to distinguish between whether a statement refers to a program's cost versus whether it refers to the person's freedom to use the software however they wish.
@@Herkan97 Yes, this is the issue with most catchy political slogans. It just starts pedantic arguments tangential to what the slogan was invented for.
@@Mr_Wallet I think life would be easier if people would say what they mean instead of trying for catchy spin. Kudos to Legal Eagel for calling out Gov. Hochul.
Once again I am asking you to cover the student loan forgiveness issue that's in the hands of the Supreme Court! As a student I really want to know your thoughts on what is likely to happen.
The right to say something doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying something. I *can* walk out into the street and shout at random people that I'm going to kill them. I *can't* complain when the police show up to arrest me. Well, okay, I can technically complain, because that's also free speech, but it won't stop my arse from getting arrested.
The "issue' with the Fire in the Theatre myth is when people refer to it, 99% of the time they are referring to the situation where it is still illegal to shout it which is when the person shouting is intentionally trying to insight a panic. They aren't talking about the situations listed in the video where it'd be permissible. So now when people hear that it's okay to do it, they just assume it's okay in every situation and clearly that isn't the case.
Yeah, I think LegalEagle actually made things more confusing by framing this discussion as an attempt to explain this "misconception" that doesn't seem to exist. Frankly in my opinion, it was just a very bad joke.
But in the video legal eagle did create a distinction between bad faith and good faith calling of a fire, he didn't say it was ok, only that there was situations where's it's ok, like a joke, which people generally thought wouldn't be permissible, he didn't say it's all ok, if you think that, you got confused over his words, not his fault
@@klol3369 Yeah, he did, but did so poorly and in a way that can cause more confusion than it clarified. Frankly he should have left this alone as a 'misconception' since it seems it's not all that common.
@@klol3369 No, that's not what he did. He first said that anyone who says "shouting Fire in a crowded theatre isn't free speech" is a moron. Only later, after going through the history of the ruling, did he then point out the times where the statement was invalid. A clearer to handle this would be to correct the myth by stating that yes, in one particular case this statement is correct, and then explaining the limitation. FWIW, for some reason, the "fire in a crowded theatre" expression is hated by lawyers. Ken White (of Popehat fame) _always_ rails against it too, and much like this video he always says the person who says it is an idiot, but the thing is, they are not. Within the context that they are speaking they are correct. What I find weird is Lawyers are incredibly pedantic and full of nuance, but with this one example, they never are. Instead they always make broad, sweeping statement that anyone who says or believes this is a moron when in reality the vast majority of people who say it are correct in the context they are speaking in. Honestly, it's quite strange.
@@zenaku666 please go to 7:43 and watch he quite clearly says you aren't on the hook if you WEREN'T trying to be malicious, which anyone with a functioning brain can understand if you were doing it maliciously you'd be liable
You should check out Louis Rossmans saga against NYC, in summary he had a lien placed on him in 2016 (without his knowledge as all court documents were sent to an incorrect address in maine) and caused him to be denied for business loans and other lines of credit. Not only this but the judgement was for 1500 and wasn't even an amount he actually owed, it was a clerical error. He was only able to find out about it after his banker did a search on his business for warrants and found the lien a week or so ago. Not only this but New York state was receiving mail BACK from the incorrect address as (return to sender) stating incorrect address yet they still failed to correct this. Understandably so, he is considering suing as this had radically changed the course of his life.
The "no shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" rule really illustrates the limits to the "More Speech is the antidote to Bad Speech" rule. Once a panic is started, calm soothing words are not going to be heard above all the groans and screams as people are being crushed and trampled.
@@emisor9272 How do you figure? The second amendment was only ruled enforceable against the states in 2010. So I can't imagine that there is as much relevant precedent surrounding it as the 1st amendment that would make the myths so obvious to a lawyer.
@@witolddupa Conservatards, and the occasional liberal who thinks you shouldn't read Huck Finn because of the generous use of the N word. For anyone who's confused, "public" libraries are generally managed by government entities and the managers get to decide what books to make available. When those managers are conservatards (or controlled by conservatards, as might happen in the case of a liberal school district in FL) they may decide that books they find offensive shouldn't be made available. While it would be illegal for those government conservatards to restrict your speech it is legal for them to choose not to make any particular book available.
@@witolddupaVery first Google result says Victoria, Texas (surprise, surprise) has threatened to cut funding to their public library if it didn't remove books. So no, it's not just schools. And it shouldn't be happening in public schools, either, while we're on the topic.
Here in Canada (which has more freedom than the USA according to the Freedom index) we have protected freedom of expression, which explicitly excludes hate speach. We also invented putting pineapple on pizza so I think that is legally protected as well.
Canada invented Hawaiian Pizza? That's like finding out that French Fries were invented in Belgium, or the Spanish Flu didn't come from Spain. Oh wait.
I'm pretty sure the phrase was always symbolic and not literal. No one really thinks you can't say the word "fire" - but that you can't knowingly cause a panic that could result in injuries and/or death.
Ever since I found this channel I’ve been addicted to learning new things about law I didn’t know. Thanks, as always, Legal Eagle, for your entertaining and informative videos.
There's a 99% chance it'd get overturned. Still, yelling "active shooter" is a much better way to get people to safety. I'm not going to barricade myself in a room if there's a fire. Educational fact, many bathrooms have special locks on the bottom of the door. They're pretty bullet resistant and they are found in almost all government building bathrooms in the USA.
I'd like to look at the tweet from Lou Diamond Phillips. When he says "hate speech is not free speech" , he follows it with "it comes with a cost to real lives". I thought that was kind of a clever thing to say actually. Although an individual may be free to say something, it still can hurt someone else dearly. I think his poetry got lost in legal translation.
Yes, it was very well phrased. Like "no such thing as a free lunch" doesn't literally mean that you will never get a midday meal that you don't physically have over cash for, people need to understand that their freedom can have real consequences for other people. The problem with using this line of attack is that the people who need to hear it aren't bright enough to figure it out, and wouldn't care about other people being hurt even if they did.
Yeah, I think applying legal terminology to everyday language is kinda wack. We all can understand what he meant by that. It's more a trying to misunderstand it than actual reasoning.
Wanted to say the same thing, LDP was using expert subversion to use free in free speech as the free in free beer thanks to the follow up about cost. Between that and the near strawman examples of yelling fire in a theater that are in fact okay (as if people thought you could never ever say fire in a theater) this video is a real stinker.
@Rae Tavia I never said it was . Libel and slander are matters of fact . Direct threats of violence call for actions of violence . Obviously it’s not absolute just like how freedom and Liberty are not as well
Wouldn’t mind if he went over the rest of the first amendment. And the rest as well, even the one more talked about then the first. Also, the ones that are talked about the least. Like the third.
"3rd Amendment Myth #7: All U.S. soldiers have to sleep outside because any building they are quartered is by definition their home, and it's unconstitutional to quarter soldiers in someone's home"
The origination of this whole thing started in Calumet Michigan during the war between miners and the mine owners. Someone did yell fire at a meeting or something and locked the doors. Many people were trampled to death. The archway of the sandstone building still stands in memoriam with a plaque of the story. This event also kicked off the fight for workers rights that spread across the country like.. wild fire. Heh.
Seems unlikely to me that the Judge who used the analogy to justify imprisoning a peaceful protestor would've been voicing the protests of the labor movement. Nah, you're right, it must've been that specific incident and not a coincidence borne from the generalized perception of public events that Devin suggested.
#3 is so important for people to learn. All these horrible arguments, often coming from people who really should know better, about free speech being violated drive me up the wall. Alas, stupidity is protected speech as well.
"You protect his opinion because he has a right to his opinion, I protect his opinion because his opinion is the same as my opinion. We are not the same." - Authoritarians
Super bad take. Authoritarians don't or would ever say your opinion is the same as theirs, they claim to only relay what the people want and then Trump invites them to Bedminster.
Objection: the person depicted at 2:17 is actually the supreme court justice Oliver Wendel Holmes JR's father, Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr, who was actually a doctor and had nothing to do with the supreme court at all!
Well observed, but what nobody knows is that Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr died in 1894 in a house fire and that he might have survived had he been warned about the fire starting, e.g. by someone shouting to alert him.
It's the same basic idea of shouting "fire" in a theater. Knowingly inciting dangerous situations with your speech, such as causing panics or calling for violence or other lawless actions isn't protected speech.
I like how the defense for allowing profanity in public is “if you don’t like it, don’t look at it”. I agree with this because women and children generally aren’t offended by the use of profanity these days (women and children swear all the time, especially around each other), but this defense is still so funny.
Even if they can't look away of avoid it it wouldn't matter. We don't need a right to say things that people don't find offensive because people don't try to prevent others from saying things that they approve of .
That's only because unlike ramzpaul, you don't live in Hungary, it's cool; again to clutch your pearls at a lesbian kiss. In case you're wondering where trTrump's idea to build isolated white havens, sorry I mean cities on federal land comes from.
Great video! Being reminded and learning about just how powerful our rights are is something that doesn't happen as often as it should. Thank you and please keep these videos coming!
Quite a range on the popularity of these misconceptions. I have never heard someone use the "fire in a crowded theatre" one to LITERALLY mean you cannot use the word "fire", it's always been a shorthand for "you can't intentionally cause a panic". Maybe my experience is not representative, though. Misconception #3 is certainly all over the place, though.
One importance nuance that’s often lost: just because speech is legally allowed doesn’t mean the speaker won’t face social consequences for it. Thank you for pointing that out.
In assassin’s creed odyssey, there’s a questline where your character talks with Socrates and you can choose from a couple options for how they respond. At one point, Socrates is talking about freedom of speech and one path of responses has your character essentially say “just because they won’t get arrested for slandering me doesn’t mean they won’t face the sharp end of my spear”. Obviously it’s a combat focused game set in Ancient Greece so “consequences” take the form of murder, and that’s not strictly applicable these days, but I feel like the sentiment is a good one. Free speech means the government can’t retaliate. It doesn’t mean you’re immune to consequences.
OBJECTION: The quote of ‘shouting fire in a theatre’ is from Oliver Wendell Holmes JUNIOR, but the picture you show at 2:15 is of his father Oliver Wendell Holmes SENIOR
If people can put dead, smelly little fish on a pizza then I can absolutely pour on the pineapple. 🙂Thanks for another great video. Knowledge is power and certainly better than ignorant rhetoric.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
⚖ What else do think the 1st Amendment says?
🥗 Get delicious, healthy meals from Factor! legaleagle.link/factor
I think the First Amendment says that I am free to be an asshole and that my employer is free to say “Hey, you’re fired for being an asshole”.
Please Do A JFK 1991 FILM REVIEW on it's LAW ACCURACY PLEASE 🙏 🙏 🙏 ?
@@ViableGibbon In the movie JFK Kevin Costner’s character is based on a real New Orleans prosecutor named James Garrison. He was branded one of the most corrupt prosecutors in the country and intentionally convicted and imprisoned many innocent people. He was finally voted out of office by Harry Connick Jr. Dad.
So can you yell bomb 💣 on a crowded plane ✈️ yes it’s worth a rewatch to see Ben stiller in meet the parents plane scene 😂
Thank you, I haven't thought about a lot of those things since my 1st amendment class in college.
But can you yell, "Movie!!!" in a crowded firehouse?
Yelling "Movie!" is fine, but God help you if you yell "Chores!"
@@valritz1489 Minimum sentence is 5,000 years in jail.
Can I yell "crowd" in a housed fire movie?
@@TheMouseMasterYT You can yell "House!" in a fired crowd.
@@UncleJrueForTue but what if they’re shooting a movie?
I had always assumed that whenever people said "you can't yell fire in a theater" they specifically meant when you know there isn't one and wanted to intentionally cause a panic. Not that it's just outright forbidden in all circumstances.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's what most people mean, using it as a metaphor. I'm not sure the premise of this video is actually even real lol.
It is what everyone means. Plus with the addition of getting kicked out. It doesn't matter what you yell the theater has the right to kick you out. And most people agree this is a acceptable infringement on the 1st amendment. It's not a public space.
That being said, I'm going to yell "fire" everytime a movie has a fire in it.
Sure, but over time that extra context knowledge can get lost. For instance, "My country, right or wrong" has lost people's knowledge of the rest of the quote, "if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”
It wasn't meant to be a statement of "I stand behind my country regardless of what it does", but a promise to work at improving the country and acknowledging when it does wrong.
@@falkorornothing261 only if you ham it up like Frank from Hotel Transylvania.
Yeah, for real that was the stupidest thing I've heard Legal Eagle say. I think people understand that example means that conduct that causes immediate danger and harm can be regulated even if the conduct is speech. I'm preparing for a future of "um actually" legal takes in response to what has always been a straightforward example of how the consequences of speech can be regulated.
I always took "yelling FIRE in a crowded theater" as a metaphor for inciting panic for malicious reasons. Aka, trying to cause harm via inciting panic.
Crowd crushes are a thing which definitely lead to injury and death.
I never took it that you couldn't yell "FIRE" in a theater ever.
@@deanjustdean7818 if that law was ever used honestly, fox news would go bankrupt in a week.
I'd rather have someone yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater than someone actually HAVE a fire in an overcrowded night club in Rhode Island...
It was specifically a metaphor for publishing pamphlets arguing against World War I encouraging men to resist the draft. The danger here was that the US government would not be able to send enough men to die in one of the dumbest wars in history, one which we had absolutely no business fighting,
if you're scared by words, you're ridiculous. If someone warns of danger, I need to see the so-called "danger" myself and make a conclusion as to whether that "danger" warrants me leaving my seat, which I paid for, to a movie which is still ongoing, if I am still enjoying it.
If the mention of a single word leads to people getting trampled to death, they deserve it for being senseless morons who only rely on what others say rather than their own judgements. Maybe it's harsh, but I find the image of hundreds of people getting killed because of some guy's falsities to be hilarious.
@@zerotwoisreal ok, counter point: you can be killed ON YOUR SEAT by other people being scared.
Like, they can try to go over your seat (you know, trying to leave as fast as possible), throwing you to the ground in the process, and then other people run over your body, killing you.
Done, a "smart person" died because someone made people believe they were in danger and they panicked.
Plus, you know that the fire alarm is basically just "someone saw fire and pushed the alarm button", right? By your definition of "being smart" every person on the building shouldn't leave until they either saw the fire or another evidence of fire THEMSELVES. And that's not a smart way to react if the building is on fire.
The problem is not that people are "dumb" and believe there's fire. The problem is that people panic.
What's your next argument?
One of the best features of free speech is that it's easier to tell which people you don't want to associate with based on what they're saying.
Ironically, it's often the people explicitly citing their right to free speech.
@@tbotalpha8133to paraphrase something Hbomberguy once said; when you stop trying to provide a valid defence to an argument and are instead arguing for your right to say it, things have gone terribly wrong
@@KangarooKommando I heard it phrased as: "If the only way you can defend your position is by pointing out that it's not strictly illegal, then it's a bad position."
@tbotalpha8133 That's a silly argument, there's no such thing as strictly legal, it's illegal or not illegal. More importantly that perspective asserts that anything which is presently illegal should not morally be argued in favor of. That would mean the position of abolitionist was wrong, even when they ensured slaves remained free who escaped on technicalities and tenuous law.
that's easy for me, i don't want to associate with anybody. except legal eagle.
This video reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag."
- Molly Ivins
Both because the constitution was written like shit, we need a new one
@@internetguy7319 more its interpreted poorly by shit people. but I get what u mean, sadly the people that would change it are the exact people u don't want doing so.
@@internetguy7319 Yeah, I’d rather someone wrap themselves in neither.
I prefer someone who wraps themselves in the flag before they burn it.
@@internetguy7319well you dont need to burn it,just rewrite it
so the point still stand
"You can't desecrate a flag"
"You can't yell fire in a crowded theater"
Guess nobody's going to come see my one-act play, Star-Spangled Inferno.
🤣
Also what future us will refer to election day 2024 if *Rump or Desantis win.
A+ comment. Bravo!
If you have snacks I'll come watch 😂
ironically it's SUPPOSED to be illegal to make merch of the American flag correct me if I'm wrong.
I think the context for Holmes' quote was the Italian Hall Disaster, not the Iroquois or another theater fire. On Christmas Eve, 1913, striking copper mine workers had pooled their resources to make sure the community's children a good meal and a Christmas present after suffering shortages due to their parents striking for most of the past year. While 400 people were packed into the second floor at the top of a steep set of stairs, a strike buster shouted "fire" then blocked the exit doors. The ensuing crush killed 73 people, 59 of which were children.
I think this was Holmes' context, and I'm pretty sure that setting up a trap to murder dozens of children on Christmas Eve in order to break a strike isn't protected speech. But I think the context has been lost or ignored, and the popular use of the phrase truly misses the point.
Thank you for not forgetting America's long, ugly, violent strikebreaking past.
Yikes... In principle, that one's just plain worse in every conceivable way to any fire induced accidents.
Yeah, I never assumed that it had anything to do with 1A. I didn’t know the historical context (thank you!), but always assumed that it had something to do with using some type of inflammatory speech (no pun intended!) deliberately to produce a negative (harmful/chaotic/injurious) reaction.
I think most jurisdictions have some kind of law against “incitement”.
I was going to come into the comments to mention this, but you tapped it well enough. I'm also sure this incident is what he was referencing.
I didn’t know about this incident, but I know crush events can be disastrous. More people need to see this!
The best part about the "you can't desecrate the flag" people is that they turn a blind eye to merchandizing the [censored] out of it by putting it on disposables, undergarments, and such... which actually is considered to be "disrespectful to the flag" according to 4 U.S. Code § 8.
I would argue that those aren't "flags" as defined in the US Flag Code. What's on disposables, undergarments, etc. are just representations of the flag--not actual U.S. flags. Depends how "flag" is defined in the Code, though.
@@RayBoone-pv4wxthe flag code is pretty ambiguous. It’s also not law.
Our natural First and Fourth Amendment rights supercede all illegal, Unconstitutional codes and laws. The People's Constitutional Amendments listing our natural rights stand above all else. That code is illegal, because it violates The People's First and Fourth Amendments.
@@alexmason5521 The only "law" i'm aware of is 18 U.S. Code § 700. Which was born entirely out of Mccarthyism, mostly as a attempt at trying to silence protests. Its been completely dismantled by the supreme court as being unconstitutional. Flag codes aren't enforced by civ law in general. All that aside nothing wrong with burning the flag in protest, if anything its the ultimate representation of what that flag is supposed to stand for.
I teach Constitutional Law in our high school. Every case you cited is taught in my class. The students are always shook when they learn these myths in my class. Thank you for clarifying these issues.
Good on you for teaching your students about these cases. My HS teacher did the same and it changed my view of the world. I found myself appreciating this nation more.
Seems like you're a much more engaging teacher than my college constitutional law professor. That class was a slow, painful death.
Now you play this and grab a bathroom break? Idk if you're allowed to leave the room with students in it anymore. I was lucky enough to have my schools be safe places and not shooting galleries.
Public HS or private?
@erikk77 please be public, please be public, please be public! We plebs need everyone as educated as we can make them and it seems to be more lacking in the public arena.
I just assumed everyone knew "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was a figure of speech for intentionally and falsely inciting panic.
Exactly. I understood it as a turn of phrase and not literal.
The same conclusion would apply, I figure.
Pretty sure they do. But you can't spin out youtube content by saying _"Hey, you know that figure of speech we all use? Turns out it's true as a figure of speech, but not literally."_
Exactly. Usually people use that example without referring to 1st amendment, to illustrate that knowingly reckless speech that leads to harm would not be without potential legal consequences
They don't. I guarantee you that if polled, most Americans would say it's illegal. Most people don't know the law, or the Constitution. You guys are just miffed that he mocked a political ally. The woman was advocating for restricting Constitutionally protected speech based on her own moral framework; which should be offensive enough. Instead, let's just focus on what people really think about yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
I mean, I don’t know anyone who thinks you literally can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre under any circumstances. It’s always just shorthand for “you can’t deliberately incite a panic”
In my experience the phrase is used in most discussions regarding free/hate speech and they always use as an example for when censorship is acceptable. This video is honestly the first time I've ever come across someone saying it means to not incite a panic.
@@Pumbear More generally, it is shorthand for not being able to use speech that is intended to cause or incite physical harm (not that much unlike the fighting words doctrine). As an example, I think it isn't that bad. The legal history of the example was cool to hear, but that doesn't make it a bad example for laypersons.
The phrase gets used by people who want to ban hate speech because many of them think that hate speech falls in that category. However, as Legal Eagle eloquently points out, it does not. When confronted with someone using the fire in a theater example as an argument for banning hate speech, I usually point out that if someone actually thinks there is a fire then it is absolutely protected by the Constitution.
@@Evangelionism thanks for that completely irrelevant comment. I’m sorry that you lost an argument with someone and can’t let it go but randomly bringing it up and being passive aggressive about it just makes you look like a sore loser.
@@Evangelionism I lament that you made this rambling, unnecessary post.
@@Evangelionism Aren't drag shows.... free speech?
As a child, my mother said YELL FIRE if I needed attention or help from perceived danger. Explaining later, people will hear FIRE more than help help, which is used at all times including tickling! 🤔 Smart Lady
but they wouldn't help you, they will just run for their lives
In my country just scream maling(thief) and ppl will come
And if is it really a thief ppl will certainly become thugs and making that thief almost going to hospital until police come
Yeah, I was taught to yell “fire” if I was being sexually assaulted or kidnapped.
@@vaishanthjv2519 That's why you should yell FREE PIZZA instead
@@kangsate3459 good. i piss on thieves.
This reminds me of a funny story Oscar Wilde told about bravery:
During a play a panic went up in the audience about a fire and people pushed and shoved to get to the one doorway. An actor told every one to sit back down, saying all they had to fear was their own reaction.
Once everyone sat back down, the actor jumped off the stage and ran out screaming through the freed-up doorway.
i saw Phantom of the opera when it came to my city.
afterwards, some of the stage hands, had a cool thing with a small amount of people that was talking about things that had happened during the show at other theaters.
during the show, there were some pyrotechnics, and the next show during a scene change there was apparently some settled smoke (i.e. some smoke from the previous show that was kicked up during the scene change) some people thought there was a fire and the entire theater calmly and quietly evacuated the theater, and the cast didnt realise what had happened untill the lights went down for the next scene change.
iirc this happened in either Canada or a Midwestern state like Minnesota
My grandfather once told me, "People think the most important thing in life is to watch your wallet. It's not. It's to watch your health." So there I was watching my health, and someone stole my wallet!
It was my grandfather.
The most ironic part of the flag desecration laws is that the vast majority of those who cry about flag burning or flag desecration are the exact same people who consistently violate the U.S. Flag Code by wearing the flag as clothing, displaying the flag on bedding or napkins or other things that get filthy and/or thrown away, desecrating the flag themselves with blue lines and Punisher logos, and flying flags on their pickup trucks, SUVs, or homes that are frayed, torn, or otherwise being displayed in poor repair.
Not only that, their flag covered clothing and stuff are all made in china.
Or putting a blue line on it. 4 U.S. Code § 8 - R (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
I was taught that when a flag cannot be repaired or cleaned, the respectable thing to do is burn it instead of toss it. This is from patriotic (in the Captain America sense, not the Punisher sense) military members. I was so confused because I always heard that burning the flag was considered desecration. I find the contradictory dichotomy of proper flag protocols to be a bit perplexing. As a result, I’ve opted to just not buy any USA flags or paraphernalia. I figured it was better to be safe than sorry. The star-spangled-banner has never really appealed to my aesthetic anyway.
@@MiraBoo You’re correct. When an American flag is in disrepair or poor condition, the flag is to be burned. The VFW will do take care of it (for free) if you’re uncomfortable doing it.
@@MiraBoo I can attest (at least in my own branch of service) that we have been taught the ceremonial burning of the flag bearing it's retirement is correct and the preferred method of disposal. However, my first experience with this happened during my association with the Boy Scouts of America, in which we were taught the same thing. According to legaleagle however, the video appears to claim there is no legal precedent (such as ceremonious burning) and it's fine to just do it, protected even. Unfortunately, the line between what is strictly legal and publicly accepted seems to be very blurry and that's probably where a lot confusion takes place.
Im confused. I thought the unspoken implication behind the fire in a crowded theater thing was "you can't knowingly incite a riot without a good reason". Are there really people out these who literally think it means "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EVER"?
I doubt it tbh, I mean probably at least one person but the vast majority of people understand it in the metaphorical sense I'm not sure why anyone would reasonably come to the conclusion Kathy Hochul in particular meant it literally, like she has a law degree and worked as a lawyer ???
@@yoshin1666 I agree, I think that whole tirade was just a bad joke with a bad premise.
@@zenaku666 Sadly, I've met several people who would take it literally. In fact, I've met many people who would believe all of the myths mentioned in this video.
People keep saying/hearing statements like that without the implication and it takes on a life of its own. Like when actual quotes get simplified and/then misattributed. The original gets forgotten and only the new version is proliferated.
Look at other sayings like: one bad apple spoils the whole bunch; and how it has turned into: it's just one bad apple, nothing to worry about. Totally goes against the actual saying's meaning, but people shortened it and implied the rest until it was forgotten and replaced and now here we are.
Are there? Yes, sadly. Some people believe everything they're told.
I've always assumed the "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" was just another way of saying "don't incite a false panic". Obviously you'd be within your rights to yell fire if there was an actual fire, but I always thought it was talking about someone trying to 'prank' the theater-goers by yelling 'fire' when there is no fire. Like yelling 'bomb' in an airport or on an airplane when there isn't one.
I always thought it had to do with "stealing" the movie-going experience from people who payed for tickets. Making people evacuate seemed like more of an annoyance than an actual crime. I also thought it could have something to do with wasting firefighter resources if someone calls 911.
Please don't give the TikTokers any ideas for new "pranks." I can already see it now: "The 'fire in a theater' challenge is going viral on social media, but is it stupid, wrong, dangerous, and protected by the Constitution? Experts weigh in after the break."
@@kl8062 it may be protected by the Constitution, but being crushed to death by people fleeing because they yelled fire is not.
Always consequences to actions, and it’s sad people just don’t seem to get that.
So it I should not say to loudly on a plane "I have a bong, who want's to get high?"
What is penalized is the deception, aka fraud. Fraud always causes people to act in a matter they wouldn't otherwise act. In the case of the people of the theater leaving. In the case of the firefighters, moving personnel, In the case of the theater, having to issue a refund. etc.
Speech is not the crime. FRAUD is the crime. Speech is just the vehicle for the fraud.
Kathy Hochul also took the right to repair bill that passed overwhelmingly and let corporations edit it as they wishes and signed the exact edit, word for word they provided her. They added a bunch of loopholes for themselves.
She let corporations write the law.
Just so you know where her interests are at.
If that was the Washington one, that just got overturned (the bad faith additions)! :)
she also put one of the most anti-abortion Republicans in the state in charge of New York's judicial system. she is garbage
A politician having corporations in their pockets???? I simply cannot believe this sir. Unheard of.
A Capitalist did a Capitalism in a Capitalist country? How shocking!
@@apenguininthemist855 you can be a capitalist until you being one effects the other capitalists bottom line.
In Canada a man was arrested for flipping the bird at someone he did not like and was charged with making a threat. The court threw out the case stating, "flipping the proverbial bird is a God-given, Charter-enshrined right that belongs to every red-blooded Canadian." Got to love that judge for his good judgment.
Lol. I would have loved to have been sitting in that courtroom.
Well, one of the most famous moments in Canadian history was Pierre Trudeau flipping the Bird to a heckler. So it's on the scoreboard
He technically wasn't arrested for giving the middle finger. He was arrested for death threats and harassment. However, it came out in the trial that no death threats were made and that the worst that happened was some curse words as well as the use of the middle finger. Obviously cussing out someone isn't a crime and the judge rightly ruled that the we all have the right to give someone the finger.
So let us all celebrate by giving the finger.
Depending on where you are, and where you are from, in Norway, "hæstkuk" and "trekuk" (rude variant of horse-penis and tree-penis) is acceptable to call a police officer. The rude variant of Vagina-face is not accepted however.
@@martinusmagneson You'd think cops could handle some unkind words considering the jobs that they voluntarily entered in to
As a Californian, I don’t know if I can stay subscribed to Legal Eagle after learning of his vicious criminal past.
He's done his time, give him a second chance.
He's served his 10,000 year sentence; he has indeed done his time.
He has clearly been rehabilitated to become a productive member of our society. Proving that focusing on rehabilitation might be a viable option. He became a lawyer, even after such a serious crime and time.
@@Sienisota Are you sure he won't just shuffle off to Mexico with his friend Andy Dufrey?
Normally I am a complete prison abolitionist.
BUT LOCK THIS MAN UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!!1!
"Free speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently" - Rosa Luxemburg
The Venn diagram of ‘people who are desperate to criminalise flag code violations’ and ‘people whose entire decor and aesthetic is flag code violations’ is a circle.
Truer words were never written.
I once corrected my uncle on flag code because he’s one of those people, and his response was because he had been in the military and I never had been, I wasn’t allowed to correct him.
@@Miltonhsr47 Proving, yet again, that it is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled.
Kamala LOVES Venn diagrams! 😉😍
How is that the case flag print is not flag code violations as those things were never United States flags in the first place
For some reason "I spent 10,000 years in jail" got me more than any other part of the story 😂
"At last, after 10,000 years I'm finally free!!!"
*Illidan Stormrage has entered the chat.*
Yeah, but the young black man that got busted with a joint is still in there. 🙄😒
The Italian Hall Disaster that happened here in Michigan was a likely company man who falsely yelled fire during a workers union christmas party for copper miners children. 73 people died. That was a perfect example of a crime of causing panic.
And the perpetrator was never punished for what he did nor were the people who paid him to do it.
Thats not the kind of crime that happens on accident. It was definitely the companies punishing unions.
The phrase "settled law that won't be overturned anytime soon" doesn't quite carry the same weight it used to.
Not even Brown v. Board or other “landmark” civil rights litigation and legislation have stood the test of time unscathed.
That's what aspiring supreme court justices say when they're trying to get through confirmation hearings.
Ugh, too true!
Facts
Was just about to post basically the same thing. Apparently, we need to start defining degrees of "settled law," because settled doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean anymore.
I always find it funny how many police officers, HR directors and politicians tell people things about the law that aren’t true such as when HR tells you in a meeting at work that you are not allowed to discuss your salary with other employees, a corporate policy that violates labor laws.
Police generally won't say stuff like that, especially regarding 1st amendment. Only politicians do that, usually democrats who want to censor speech.
These people have a vested interest in pitting workers against each other instead of having them band together
I'm not from the US but I always thought that "shouting fire" is exactly about inciting a panic without there being a fire. Not literally about just shouting "fire".
As an American I can confirm that this is how we use it to.
Yeah. He is reaching when we tried to make an argument out of this.
I wonder if anyone took the “can’t yell fire in a theater” thing to mean they literally couldn’t. I know that’s how it’s casually said, but I always through it was obvious that it was shortened down and clearly meant not yelling fire for no reason and causing chaos. Was that actually not obvious to most people? Were the majority of people out there thinking they would go to jail if there was a fire and yelled it? Seriously?
No, that's just Devin being a pedantic lawyer in a youtube video, and exaggerating peoples opinions for dramatic effect. I've no doubt there's a few nuts that took the phrase literally, but just about every other comment in this video is an attempt to question Devins literal stance.
Yes ofcourse people do as the phrase is rather obtuse. The issue is with purposefully inciting a panic, but the phrase is only used in regards to free speech issues.
Hahah yeah I can't believe he went down that path and ignored the most common understanding of that phrase. Good call m8
Participate in a 2nd amendment debate and wait for people to use the fire in a crowded theater to emphasize "rights aren't absolute" without any awareness of irony to what they're saying.
My dad used to say if they need help to yell fire because it would actually grab people's attention
I worked in movie theatres for a long time. While not illegal, it isn't wise to talk about fire in a crowded movie theatre, so we had a code we would use, instead of saying "there's a fire in the theatre" we were told to say "there's a kitty in the theatre" so as not to frighten the patrons. An occasional "kitty" in the popcorn popper, no big deal - smother it, throw out the blackened popcorn, move on. Then one time the motor that raised the curtain (old, fancy showplace) seized up and caught fire. One of the new ushers noticed the smoke and investigated, then came running to the boss: "Mr. Manchan - there's a kitty in the theatre behind the screen!" Boss doesn't react -- I guess the code didn't connect or something, so the usher tries again: "There's a kitty behind the screen, and it's on fire!" We grabbed a fire extinguisher and put out the fire while the previews were running, pulled the plug on the motor, and let it ride until closing. Good times!
If I spotted a real fire in a theater, I would immediately tell a theater employee about it so that the employee could do something about the fire. I wouldn’t want to scream and panic because panicking doesn’t solve the problem at hand.
In the Royal Albert Hall, the code for fire was Mr Sands, raising the possibility of them showing Manuel de Falla's famous Ritual Mr Sands Dance.
I dunno, I feel like “won’t be overturned any time soon” is a weird take given the current SCOTUS’ obvious disdain for precedence and jurisprudence.
The 1970s were a magical moment where the Southern Strategy heavily relied on Evangelicals want to pretend that they were better than godless commie scum and they made certain compromises to feel better, and Newt Gingrich's revolution under Clinton started to disantle them like clockwork. That Biden and Hillary were willing to support certain parts of it shows the Democrats were very aware what percentage of their voters didn't liked being called a racist publicly.
Based on my European experiences people who voted Obama then Trump only voted for Obama for jobs and zero of his policies. Now that Russia and China are no longer open to interpretation if they're friend or foe many can pretend it's the 1950s again.
IMO a conservative court is waaaaaay less likely to overturn protections on speech than a liberal court.
@@cutebabyseal621
So you’re not keeping up with their rulings ?
They chose not to take a case where the police arrested somebody put them in jail before realizing that it was constitutionally protected speech. But the Supreme Court said he had no remedy.
You should focus on your guys instead of pointing at the other guys and ignoring your guys
Oh, you mean like the previous guy packing the Supreme Court and inciting the Jan 6th riots?
If they overturn First Amendment protections, there will rapidly be issues with a ton of statements made by the political right, not just the left. If they make it illegal to burn the U. S. flag because it's inciting rebellion against the government, it would _definitely_ be illegal to fly the Confederate flag. The law cuts both ways.
I never thought that was supposed to be literal, I just thought it meant you aren't allowed to purposely and falsely endanger others.
same here
Yeah, this seems like a rare bad take from Devin. It seems obvious that the implication is that you can't do it to purposely create panic.
@@cavemanfreak But theres no law saying you can't purposefully create panic, just not purposefully incite lawless activity. That's not saying it would be allowed or anything, just that there's no law against it. I think Devin's right here.
@@cavemanfreak not just that, the next section he mentions a quote where someone says "hate speech isn't free speech," but it's clear the author wasn't talking about the legal concept of "free speech." They were saying hate speech incurs a social cost, not that hate speech is illegal.
@@itsLantik there are many laws that say that. Granted, none of them are the first amendment.
This brings up an interesting point. There are several fundamental differences in how German and US law handle these things. In no particular order:
- first and most importantly, there are a number of rules that in the US restrict government, but in Germany restrict everyone.
- We generally don't call it "hate speech".The probably most similar concept is _Volksverhetzung_ _Volksverhetzung, in English "incitement to hatred" (used also in the official English translation of the German Criminal Code),[1][2] "incitement of popular hatred", "incitement of the masses", or "instigation of the people", is a concept in German criminal law that refers to incitement to hatred against segments of the population _*_and refers to calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them,_*_ including assaults against the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population.[1][2][3]_
- Apropos of that, just like the first amendment calls out a number of important rights, so does the German constitution. But it does have one right the first amendment lacks: the right to human dignity. This has far-reaching consequences. It restricts what drill sergeants or the cops may do, but also leads to insults not being legal - they're in the same class as libel and slander, all of which are considered to violate that rule. Like in the US, public figures and officials have to accept lesser protections.
I have heard of some of that, but it's all very interesting taken together. My question is whether that last matter is generally accepted by most of the public in Germany, or if it is hotly contested? I can imagine everyone is okay with their own human dignity being unassailable, but are there groups out there angry that they must play some game of words in order to speak against their opponents without "insulting" them as interpreted by the law?
Edit: I read your statement more closely and realize you said "segments of the population". Are these segments any sort of category, including political faction, or is it generally restricted to identity categories (such as race, sex, gender, ethnicity, etc.)?
Then again, in Germany it’s forbidden to deny the holocaust or say some other socially unacceptable things. Granted, nothing of value is lost there, but it’s a serious restriction of free speech that is not based on actual incitement of violence.
@@xhelloselm Those Holocaust denier laws highlight the fundamental difference in speech freedom between our countries. Germany just does not believe in free speech. The U.S. is all about free speech, and quite specifically for unpopular or offensive speech. And the US can not have laws against hurting people's feelings by merely saying things. This is because we do not believe it is possible to trust the government to decide what those limits are. (However, there can be civil actions between individuals for inflicting emotional distress under some situations.)
@@cstacy You hit on the most critical thing here, we CAN NOT trust the government to restrict OUR rights in a way that is beneficial to US. If the government can decide what hate speech is then they WILL label anyone who speaks out against them as a hate group. If the government can decide who is mentally unstable and shouldn't be allowed to wield a firearm then they WILL label anyone who disagrees with them as mentally unstable (happens all the time).
@@cstacy “Government” is composed of our elected representatives and executives. Not monarchs. If we knowingly vote in people like that, that’s on the voters for choosing it.
I think when people say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre" it's assumed the individual is doing so in bad faith to start a panic. So the essence of the point is still correct.
In most cases, people get fixated on only one portion of a statement instead of the intention of the whole. People love to skip the qualifier in the statement because it allows them to manipulate it to their choosing.
This reminds me of something about a well-regulated militia, but I just can't quite put my finger on it. Man, it's right on the tip of my tongue...
How many can you name off the top of your head?
- ...spoils the bunch
- ...but satisfaction brought it back
- ...of the covenant... of the womb
- ...master of none
Of course, @Craig Johnson above has the winner.
@@thekwjiboo yes, and people conveniently seem to forget what a militia is. It's not the military, I'll tell ya that.
@@williameldridge9382 It's also not a bunch of weekend warriors who think all it takes to stop an MBT is a sixgun and a US flag. There's a reason the National Guards were created and there's a reason why the US actually does have a standing military despite the founders' problems - and that's not the least that over time, John Doe plumber wasn't willing to put in the time and effort needed to have a functioning militia of otherwise civilians.Have a chat with some people from Switzerland. They do still have a citizens' army. But that means that able-bodied people need to take substantial time out of their professional lives in regular intervals so as to keep up to specs being able to operate in an effective military force capable of defending the country.
@@GSBarlev just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and then you don't need to finish the rest of the sayings or think about what they are saying... It's easy!
The Espionage Act is one of the best example of government overreach ever. Has it ever been used to prosecute a foreign agent or citizen colluding with foreign agents? Please do a video on the Espionage Act!
I would also like to hear more on this. As stated in the video, the government doesn't seem to like people getting out of the draft.
Read up on the Doll Lady, who worked for Japan, the prostitution ring the Navy busted in San Diego in 1943 that was based out of Mexico and financed by Japan, there was an American held in Belleview in New York who spied for Germany.
As for governmental overreach, oh boy. Operation Waterback deported US citizens, breaking the legal obligation Roosevelt gave them, every tribal contract ever, and mly favorite, abusing the 13th Amendment's prisoner exclusion to continue to enslave people for existing while black or brown and get presidential pardoned, and still try to run Maricopa County again.
When used as intended it's a good law. When used to support government actions that it never was intended to support it's a government overreach.
7:43 But isn't that exactly what people are insinuating when they say "You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre?" I doubt anyone thinks there's a blanket ban on that word in that building, but use it as an idiom to refer to deliberately causing a panic that will likely lead to considerable harm.
Yeah, one heck of a strawman had to be built for this video to work...
Yeah, I was kind of confused by the first one. He calls it a myth, but at the end just lists a few exceptions when you can yell fire even though there isn't a fire, situations that are outside of the implied scenario.
I've seen so many people online that have no clue on how the first amendment works and how they can sue a company like twitter for limiting hate speech in their platform. This video is very informative and even pointed people to this video on what free speech protects and what it doesnt.
OBJECTION: I think when people say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", they aren't saying that there is a magic spell that makes you go to jail if you say the word fire. I think what they're saying is "you can't (maliciously, falsely) yell fire in a crowded theatre (which would create a dangerous situation)", which you basically agree is correct. Rare weird strawman from this channel, you're usually more rhetorically honest.
I think he's actually giving a mathematician's answer, rather than creating a strawman (I've seen idiots argue that you can get arrested for yelling fire in a crowded place, more than a dozen separate times, so it's a position that actually exists):
it's technically correct (you can't get arrested for yelling fire in a crowded theatre)
but also useless (it's entered shorthand as an idiom that means doing something to cause a panic, you could "modernize" it to "shouting "this guy has a gun!!!" in a school right on the tail of a bunch of high-coverage school shootings").
The second point is also very weird, because the perspective he gives at 10:10 is a very American attitude. He admits that other countries restrict hate speech... and then he pretends it's impossible to do fairly? Maybe I've missed something, but I don't think we're exactly living in a dictatorship up here in Canada, nor is it an Orwellian dystopia across the pond in Germany.
I can't even take seriously his implication that hate speech laws (or any laws) are interpreted by politicians. Judges aren't even elected on any level in most countries.
@@neoqwerty but like... You CAN get arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theatre if that's false and causes a stampede and kills a bunch of people. It's just a true thing that can happen, which highlights the limits of the protections of free speech. Like, the idea that people who misinterpret free speech get across is "I can never be arrested for simply saying words" and the crowded theatre example is saying "here's a way you can be arrested for saying words". You would be arrested for involuntary manslaughter or something, and you couldn't say "but first amendment" as a defense.
A prime example of
"Good Lawyer can tell what you can do."
That "I spent 10,000 years in Jail" line got me good! 😅😅
After 10,000 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!
@@TetsuDeinonychus Alpha, Legal Eagle's escaped! Recruit a litigation team with attitude!
I have a difficult to shake image of Devin yelling "Fire!, fire!, fire!" at the screen a la Beavis and Butthead.
Bro just admitted being a time traveler
@@Rejukem "Oh no! Not copyright lawyers!"
9:10 - After the events of the past year or so, I'd hesitate to call _anything_ "settled law that won't be overturned anytime soon".
I assume most people connected the ‘yelling fire’ bit with intentionally creating a violent or dangerous situation.
Most people with a functioning brain, at least.
You know what they say about people who assume too much right
I feel quite safe assuming a massive proportion of arguments have no basis in logic.
Definitely. I really think when most people say, "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," they are are imagining exactly the set of circumstances given in the video for when it is in fact illegal; there is no fire and your intent is to create a dangerous panic. I don't think most people actually think you can't yell fire if there is a fire, as part of the performance, etc., they're just using "you can't yell fire" as a shorthand.
@@migmit Yeah, but you know how the law gets when it comes to functioning brains. It has to be really specific for those without them...such as politicians.
I think the biggest misconception about free speech is that a LOT of people (mostly conservatives, influencers, and conservative influencers tbh) view free speech as a defense from public criticism. Which it is not. Free speech specifically relates to the government, and doesn’t prevent individuals from saying “this take is colder than the Antarctic, L + ratio + no bitches”.
Edit: people seem to have missed my point, but I guess that’s just free speech at work! Another win for free speech, I guess.
"Be wary of the bad take, for one may be socially condemned to get no b*tches with no recourse via the First Amendment." --Thomas Emerson
Precisely. They view speech as not really free unless they're guaranteed a positive reception, and they think that a negative one is truly trampling on their speech rights.
@@leathewolf That applies to both sides left and right
Very vague take solely dependent on a person in question or how you perceive his views.
Getting hounded by a screeching mob of antifa terrorists isn't criticism. Neither is people trying to get you fired because they don't like what you said, doxxing or all the dozens of other things the cult of woke (and unfortunatly an increasing number of others) tends to do to people that dare to disagree with their orthodoxy.
I never knew Legal Eagle was a 10,000 year old vampire who hid his face tats with makeup 🤯
Glad someone else realized the most important takeaway from this video. 😂
Also a time traveler, because the law he broke was made in 1989.
Also he is AI
finally some lore
The movie a man from earth was based on Legal Eagle
Hey LE and viewers! Another reason people were nervous in theaters was because of the Italian Hall tragedy in Calumet, MI. In 1913 someone falsely yelled fire! and 73 people died. They never did find out who was responsible.
We might not know which hired thug(s) caused that massacre of striking workers and their families, but it's no mystery which robber barons arranged it.
Well, it's certainly a mystery to me. I have no idea who you're insinuating accusations towards. @@Dhumm81
I'm glad youtube clarified their own stance on speech with regards to monetization, because being able to watch this video without it being constantly bleeped was fantastic :D
I once screamed "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse. All I got was weird looks.
@@OpalBLeigh to be fair, I didn't follow through with the movie. I was bluffing. ;-)
That's because you were supposed to shout "THEATER!"
The biggest reason movie theaters of that era caught on fire so easily was because the film was made of cellulose nitrate which was extremely flammable. Passing through the inside of a hot projector would at times catch on fire.
It also applied to theatres, not just movie ones. (candle props were VERY common).
Also to both, IIRC the documentary I read about regulatory safeties for theatres and movie theatres, there was also a resurgence of it when electricity got common and lightbulbs caused much of it.
In Calumet,Michigan. Someone yelled fire at a Christmas party in 1913. There was no fire and 74 people mostly children trampled each other and died trying to escape the Hall. Someone yelled fire on purpose, and there was no other way out. Whoever yelled fire was never solved. The crime remains unsolved. Today it’s called the Italian hall disaster.
I’ve been to the site of the incident and looked at the memorial. It’s a haunting and sobering place to visit.
"You cowards" thank you Devin for saying exactly what I'm thinking every time i hear "let's go Brandon".
Actually the crowd at the car race did shout F*** joe Biden. However a news reporter interviewing Brandon deliberately changed it to Let's Go Brandon even though it was clear to everyone it was the former. Let's go Brandon is a much more effective "calling cry" because it is F*** joe Biden plus highlights the media's role in twisting the truth
It’s not meant to be a secret, they’re poking fun at the media
Well the crowd behind NBC Sports reporter Kelli Stavast was not cowards about having their 1st Amendment moment.
Lol the whole reason for it is mocking the media and because algorithms on social media easily censor "bad" words
@@sackofclams953 Which itself is dumb. They think "the media" was trying to cover it up, but the fact is that when those guys are on a stage with earpieces on, it is really hard to hear or understand what a crowd is chanting. Plus, the driver on stage was named Brandon. As usual, Trump supporters get themselves wound up over the dumbest shit and make it their rally call.
I've always loved this quote from The American President... "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
That guy advocating for what I disagree with is just an opportunity for me to tell other people why he's wrong and I'm right.
honestly, I always thought the "don't shout fire in a theater" meant using an emergency situation to cause a false panic. I compare this to the story of "the boy who cried wolf"
What a lot of people forget in the moral to the story is that there actually was a killer wolf on the prowl.
You can shout fire in a theater. You just may civilly liable for any damages caused in the ensuing panic. But you can't be arrested just for saying it.
@@rekcusdoo This is a better explanation of the law than Legal Eagle
@@rekcusdoo Can you be arrested for pulling the fire alarm though?
@@stevenclark5173es. If you ring the fire alarm during a false alarm you could be arrested for misusing emergency services
I love that you know where the line in the sand is and can walk along it, whereas other channels just steer clear.
3:06 this might actually have something to do with actual incidents of fatal crowd crushes which can indeed happen over fire alarms.
In the Theatre Royal disaster in 1849, a small fire broke and was extinguished - but because of the panic (and because theatres of that day were so badly designed), it caused a crowd crush that killed dozens of people. If someone had *falsely* shouted about a fire you’d have an argument for some kind of manslaughter there.
I thought the "fire in a crowded theater" specifically referred to doing it with the intent of creating chaos.
Yeah as a not american my thought the qualifying factor was "to induce panic" ie the intent was the crime not the speech
same but evidentially we are being led to believe a significant amount of people take it literally? Like I get LegalEagle is joking around, but seriously who thinks "yelling fire in a crowded theater" in that context literally means you can't ever yell the word fire in a theater?
As a non American that first story boggled me too. People in the modern age still can't determine if the language used was meant to be contextual instead of literal?
And then I remember Twitter...
@zenaku666 the statement is a summary. The full opinion probably spans thousands of words over many pages of paper.
The funny thing is is that protesting the draft is the kind of political speech that I think the 1st Amendment was intended to protect in the first place.
@@andriaching3735
A good portion of America holds the belief that anything that isn't expressly illegal is moral and the reverse is true where if something is immoral it's most likely illegal. So since the false fire call is immoral, many believe it's automatically illegal. I hope that provides some context?
Being a person who sometimes goes to live theatre performances in Chicago, I paused the video to look up the Iroquois Theater incident. The theater had only opened a month before the disaster and reopened after repairs. The theater was in violation of fire codes for theaters in Chicago which require a separate stairway for each level of the theater (I noticed that when I went to a show this week and had seats in the dress circle level (the middle one of three levels). Anyway, the repaired theater reopened and continued to operate until 1926 when it closed and was torn down. A new theater opened in the same space a few years later and for decades was name the Oriental theater until the naming rights were sold recently and it is now the Neaderlander theater. I will be attending Tina there next week.
This is great! The only thing I'd caution people about in regards to hate speech is that while the speech itself is protected, it's a thin line where you can still be arrested for it under the fighting words doctrine that allows government to limit speech when it is likely to incite immediate violence or retaliation by the recipients of the words.
I think that alone would make for a really interesting video, given the increasingly retributive response from groups who don't want any language they find "hateful" used. I'm sure it varies wildly by state.
It makes you wonder where the limits really are with respect to the law. Like, if I walk into a small store in the middle of an argument and yell "I will beat the shit out of the next person who says the word 'lemons'," is someone guilty of inciting retaliation if they just yell 'lemons!' back at me? What if I said the next person who speaks at all? Or does the incite have to directly attack something covered under a protected class?
"After 10,000 year I'm free! It's time to practice law!"
“Recruit a team of paralegals with attitude.”
I thought he said 10,000 hours ... works out to a bit over a year and a month.
I have slept for 10,000 years! The gavel of influential people misinterpreting the law has rudely awaken me from my long slumber! Now I must completely eviscerate them with facts and logic... Except actually using facts and logic, unlike Ben Shapiro.
Magic wand, make my witness groooooow!
We are not prepared
I am a felon and the event did inspire me to become a lawyer but I learned the bar won't pass me because of my felony
Depends on the bar and the felony in question. CA has some felony lawyers, and probably some other states as well.
I am a fella
@@MsSgent it's actually encouraging to hear. My reading suggested that there's nothing outright saying I can't become a lawyer but that the bar does a sort of morality check which makes the odds pretty heavily stacked against me.
(3:10) For anyone who is curious, that is the fire at the Cine Teatro Ópera in Mexico City on June 25, 1970. Special lights were brought in for a benefit that happened earlier in the night and the horrific wiring job set the roof on fire. No one was in the theater at the time, so there was no one to scream "fuego". The theater was rebuilt and eventually went defunct in the 1990s after the city closed it down because of a brawl that happened during a rock concert. While technically not "abandoned", it is currently highly-favored among urban explorers.
I think the best way to sum up the First Amendment is you can say whatever you want according the court of law but don't be shocked when the court of public opinion finds you guilty. Just because you can say something doesn't mean it doesn't carry any consequences.
Interesting video. In my American history 101 class, I've discussed the Schenk case. I've never taken the yelling fire in a crowded theater part of the Judge Holmes' opinion literal. I've compared that statement to calling in a bomb threat and then trying to use speech to get out of the consequences of doing it. I'm also glad he mentioned the concept of free speech doesn't apply to private businesses as many erroneously believe.
I also talk in my class about the legal definition of free speech vs. the principle of it, dating back to the Enlightenment era. Free speech principle was meant to prevent persecution of an individual and prevent silencing of ideas that offended people or threatened those in power. Many people today say obscene, false, and despicable things. It's important to distinguish between free speech in the legal sense and free speech in the public sphere. People also have a right to criticize and ostracize those whose speech they disagree with.
Free speech means the government can't stop you from saying something. Not that there won't be any consequences to doing it. People seem to regularly get that confused.
@@Llortnerof Exactly. Good point.
This was an informative video but I think that anyone using the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" is implicitly saying that you can't falsely yell "fire" with the intention of creating panic and causing harm. That seems pretty obvious to me, since spelling it out exactly takes a lot more words
Same. It never occurred to me that someone might think talking about fire would be illegal or saying the name of a movie that contains the word "fire" would be illegal or that a comedian couldn't say fire or anything other than intentionally creating panic and harm while knowing there is no need to panic.
If there's anything I learned after watching LE's videos, it's that implicit ideas need to be specifically expressed
You folks are thinking about this logically. Assume at least half of all arguments have no basis in logic.
Nice wild generalzation and speculation, Karen. Where did you learn critical reasoning, PragerU or Gov Hochul's press conferences?
@@VoltisArt ONLY half?
"One man's vulgarity is another man's lyric" goes hard
I always thought the "hate speech is not free speech" wasn't saying that hate speech is illegal, but rather that the cost of hate speech is paid by someone else. Like their safety, their liberties, their general well-being. I'm pretty sure that's what the tweet was getting at too.
They could just say that instead of an inaccurate, presumably-trying-to-be-cool one-liner.
I think you're right that Devin wasn't catching this as a turn of phrase, but overall I think the point he was trying to make is generally true-that people are making the claim that hate speech in the US is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
In the open-source computer software world, there is a small culture of stating "free gratis" and "free libre" in order to distinguish between whether a statement refers to a program's cost versus whether it refers to the person's freedom to use the software however they wish.
@@Herkan97 Yes, this is the issue with most catchy political slogans. It just starts pedantic arguments tangential to what the slogan was invented for.
No they mean the first amendment doesn't protect speech they disagree with which is all hate speech is, something democratic party disagrees with
@@Mr_Wallet I think life would be easier if people would say what they mean instead of trying for catchy spin. Kudos to Legal Eagel for calling out Gov. Hochul.
Once again I am asking you to cover the student loan forgiveness issue that's in the hands of the Supreme Court! As a student I really want to know your thoughts on what is likely to happen.
It doesn't protect you from civil lawsuits. Just ask Alex Jones.
Or don't, since he's still in denial about it.
The right to say something doesn't protect you from the consequences of saying something. I *can* walk out into the street and shout at random people that I'm going to kill them. I *can't* complain when the police show up to arrest me. Well, okay, I can technically complain, because that's also free speech, but it won't stop my arse from getting arrested.
It doesn't protect when it causes actual harm.
1A doesn't protect liable and slander.
Libel not liable
The "issue' with the Fire in the Theatre myth is when people refer to it, 99% of the time they are referring to the situation where it is still illegal to shout it which is when the person shouting is intentionally trying to insight a panic. They aren't talking about the situations listed in the video where it'd be permissible. So now when people hear that it's okay to do it, they just assume it's okay in every situation and clearly that isn't the case.
Yeah, I think LegalEagle actually made things more confusing by framing this discussion as an attempt to explain this "misconception" that doesn't seem to exist. Frankly in my opinion, it was just a very bad joke.
But in the video legal eagle did create a distinction between bad faith and good faith calling of a fire, he didn't say it was ok, only that there was situations where's it's ok, like a joke, which people generally thought wouldn't be permissible, he didn't say it's all ok, if you think that, you got confused over his words, not his fault
@@klol3369 Yeah, he did, but did so poorly and in a way that can cause more confusion than it clarified. Frankly he should have left this alone as a 'misconception' since it seems it's not all that common.
@@klol3369 No, that's not what he did. He first said that anyone who says "shouting Fire in a crowded theatre isn't free speech" is a moron. Only later, after going through the history of the ruling, did he then point out the times where the statement was invalid.
A clearer to handle this would be to correct the myth by stating that yes, in one particular case this statement is correct, and then explaining the limitation.
FWIW, for some reason, the "fire in a crowded theatre" expression is hated by lawyers. Ken White (of Popehat fame) _always_ rails against it too, and much like this video he always says the person who says it is an idiot, but the thing is, they are not. Within the context that they are speaking they are correct.
What I find weird is Lawyers are incredibly pedantic and full of nuance, but with this one example, they never are. Instead they always make broad, sweeping statement that anyone who says or believes this is a moron when in reality the vast majority of people who say it are correct in the context they are speaking in.
Honestly, it's quite strange.
@@zenaku666 please go to 7:43 and watch he quite clearly says you aren't on the hook if you WEREN'T trying to be malicious, which anyone with a functioning brain can understand if you were doing it maliciously you'd be liable
You should check out Louis Rossmans saga against NYC, in summary he had a lien placed on him in 2016 (without his knowledge as all court documents were sent to an incorrect address in maine) and caused him to be denied for business loans and other lines of credit. Not only this but the judgement was for 1500 and wasn't even an amount he actually owed, it was a clerical error. He was only able to find out about it after his banker did a search on his business for warrants and found the lien a week or so ago.
Not only this but New York state was receiving mail BACK from the incorrect address as (return to sender) stating incorrect address yet they still failed to correct this.
Understandably so, he is considering suing as this had radically changed the course of his life.
The "no shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" rule really illustrates the limits to the "More Speech is the antidote to Bad Speech" rule. Once a panic is started, calm soothing words are not going to be heard above all the groans and screams as people are being crushed and trampled.
@@Sienisota - Thanks for the endorsement.
"There's a fire!"
"Actually this man is a liar and there isn't a fi-" *trampled to death*
@@zactron1997 nooo, and he was about to rhyme too!
Do a series like this for every Amendment please! (I have no idea what im supposed to be learning in Con Law lol I need help)
Check out the podcast “More Perfect” it talks in depth about every amendment.
A video about misuses of the 2nd amendment would kill half of devon's brain cells
The one about the third amendment is going to be real short
@Jim Burlington
would he cover the 18 ammendment, or just skip it with a brief note saying that it was repealed by the 21st ammendment?
@@emisor9272 How do you figure? The second amendment was only ruled enforceable against the states in 2010. So I can't imagine that there is as much relevant precedent surrounding it as the 1st amendment that would make the myths so obvious to a lawyer.
Which is worse: 10,000 years in jail or 8-12 years in Law School?
Probably Law School. At least prison gives you 3 meals a day.
@@redpandamurphy And you get sleep
I mean...Illidan suffered through ten thousand years of jail, and turned out pretty well.
OTOH, consider most lawyers...
@@Fish9133 That too
💀💀
man, i would be so much happier about supreme court rulings if cops actually listened to them
As a librarian I am keen to know your thoughts on all the book bans that are happening in schools and public libraries these days.
Who is banning books in a public library.?
@@witolddupa Conservatards, and the occasional liberal who thinks you shouldn't read Huck Finn because of the generous use of the N word. For anyone who's confused, "public" libraries are generally managed by government entities and the managers get to decide what books to make available. When those managers are conservatards (or controlled by conservatards, as might happen in the case of a liberal school district in FL) they may decide that books they find offensive shouldn't be made available. While it would be illegal for those government conservatards to restrict your speech it is legal for them to choose not to make any particular book available.
@@suedenim9208 So you have no problem with hustler magazine or Mein Kamph in an elementary school library?
@@witolddupa What school do you know of that actually has these items on shelf?
@@witolddupaVery first Google result says Victoria, Texas (surprise, surprise) has threatened to cut funding to their public library if it didn't remove books. So no, it's not just schools. And it shouldn't be happening in public schools, either, while we're on the topic.
Here in Canada (which has more freedom than the USA according to the Freedom index) we have protected freedom of expression, which explicitly excludes hate speach. We also invented putting pineapple on pizza so I think that is legally protected as well.
> We also invented putting pineapple on pizza
Death penalty!
Canada invented Hawaiian Pizza? That's like finding out that French Fries were invented in Belgium, or the Spanish Flu didn't come from Spain.
Oh wait.
We area truly superior country. Just polite about it.
"Free Speech is not Hate Speech because it costs society" is definitely arguing a societal cost perspective
Whelp you have less right to live than the US. If you get horribly injured, the doctors will euthanize you, sometimes against your will.
I'm pretty sure the phrase was always symbolic and not literal. No one really thinks you can't say the word "fire" - but that you can't knowingly cause a panic that could result in injuries and/or death.
And be prepared for the consequences of your speech.
Ever since I found this channel I’ve been addicted to learning new things about law I didn’t know. Thanks, as always, Legal Eagle, for your entertaining and informative videos.
When there's an active shooter, shouting "Fire!" might be taken as an instruction to the shooter 😬
More specifically, "Fire at will!"
@@extraemail4961 In that situation, anyone named Will might want to quickly change their name.
There's a 99% chance it'd get overturned. Still, yelling "active shooter" is a much better way to get people to safety. I'm not going to barricade myself in a room if there's a fire. Educational fact, many bathrooms have special locks on the bottom of the door. They're pretty bullet resistant and they are found in almost all government building bathrooms in the USA.
I'd like to look at the tweet from Lou Diamond Phillips. When he says "hate speech is not free speech" , he follows it with "it comes with a cost to real lives". I thought that was kind of a clever thing to say actually. Although an individual may be free to say something, it still can hurt someone else dearly. I think his poetry got lost in legal translation.
Yes, it was very well phrased. Like "no such thing as a free lunch" doesn't literally mean that you will never get a midday meal that you don't physically have over cash for, people need to understand that their freedom can have real consequences for other people.
The problem with using this line of attack is that the people who need to hear it aren't bright enough to figure it out, and wouldn't care about other people being hurt even if they did.
Yeah, I think applying legal terminology to everyday language is kinda wack. We all can understand what he meant by that. It's more a trying to misunderstand it than actual reasoning.
Wanted to say the same thing, LDP was using expert subversion to use free in free speech as the free in free beer thanks to the follow up about cost. Between that and the near strawman examples of yelling fire in a theater that are in fact okay (as if people thought you could never ever say fire in a theater) this video is a real stinker.
I think the " hate speech isn't free speech" has more to do with the price that the victims of that speech pay.
Doesn’t matter still trying to censor someone’s opinion
@Rae Tavia I never said it was . Libel and slander are matters of fact . Direct threats of violence call for actions of violence . Obviously it’s not absolute just like how freedom and Liberty are not as well
LOL you can yell "fire!" but if there is no fire......well......you're in trouble.
It reminds me of one of Bart Simpson's opening titles chalkboard punishments "I will not shout "fire" in a crowded classroom" 😆
When I was teaching hs in Brooklyn in the early 2000's, I had students who thought it was funny to shout "GUN!" in the classroom.
@@timriehl1500 that's even worse 😯
I hope you do these kinds of videos for all of the amendments! At least the first 10 or so.
Wouldn’t mind if he went over the rest of the first amendment. And the rest as well, even the one more talked about then the first. Also, the ones that are talked about the least. Like the third.
"3rd Amendment Myth #7: All U.S. soldiers have to sleep outside because any building they are quartered is by definition their home, and it's unconstitutional to quarter soldiers in someone's home"
The origination of this whole thing started in Calumet Michigan during the war between miners and the mine owners. Someone did yell fire at a meeting or something and locked the doors. Many people were trampled to death. The archway of the sandstone building still stands in memoriam with a plaque of the story. This event also kicked off the fight for workers rights that spread across the country like.. wild fire. Heh.
Which now gloriously stands at "leave unions because help women of color are in it"
Also memorialized by Woodey Guthrie in "1913 Massacre"
Seems unlikely to me that the Judge who used the analogy to justify imprisoning a peaceful protestor would've been voicing the protests of the labor movement. Nah, you're right, it must've been that specific incident and not a coincidence borne from the generalized perception of public events that Devin suggested.
#3 is so important for people to learn. All these horrible arguments, often coming from people who really should know better, about free speech being violated drive me up the wall. Alas, stupidity is protected speech as well.
During an active shooter situation, the LAST thing I'm yelling is "FIRE!"
Just saying...
And then the shooter opens fire. Later, witnesses name you as an accomplice.. Well Done :P
@@klausvogler6710 I'd probably yell "gun!"...yelling "fire!" might be construed as a command...
You're just saying "fire". Not yelling it. Got it.
@@yuchoob lol ya "got me" *grabs belly and falls*
"You protect his opinion because he has a right to his opinion, I protect his opinion because his opinion is the same as my opinion. We are not the same." - Authoritarians
Super bad take. Authoritarians don't or would ever say your opinion is the same as theirs, they claim to only relay what the people want and then Trump invites them to Bedminster.
"A woman can be a man if she wants to"
*War begins*
Aren't you supposed to be a man and protect us women?
-Every feminist ever.
Objection: the person depicted at 2:17 is actually the supreme court justice Oliver Wendel Holmes JR's father, Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr, who was actually a doctor and had nothing to do with the supreme court at all!
Meh all old white men look the same anyway
@@DripSerpent I dissent!
Well observed, but what nobody knows is that Oliver Wendel Holmes Sr died in 1894 in a house fire and that he might have survived had he been warned about the fire starting, e.g. by someone shouting to alert him.
Do you mean there aren't swat teams in the projector booth, just waiting for someone to yell fire in a crowded theater?
It would have been nice to talk about the things that are actually restricted. Like the "fighting words".
It depends on the audience too. Whether you're talking to another person or a dog "hey buddy, wanna go outside?" Has very different meanings lol.
@Craig Johnson as is calling them a bitch.
It's the same basic idea of shouting "fire" in a theater. Knowingly inciting dangerous situations with your speech, such as causing panics or calling for violence or other lawless actions isn't protected speech.
I like how the defense for allowing profanity in public is “if you don’t like it, don’t look at it”. I agree with this because women and children generally aren’t offended by the use of profanity these days (women and children swear all the time, especially around each other), but this defense is still so funny.
Jesus said "if your eye offend thee, pluck it out"
Even if they can't look away of avoid it it wouldn't matter. We don't need a right to say things that people don't find offensive because people don't try to prevent others from saying things that they approve of .
That's only because unlike ramzpaul, you don't live in Hungary, it's cool; again to clutch your pearls at a lesbian kiss. In case you're wondering where trTrump's idea to build isolated white havens, sorry I mean cities on federal land comes from.
Legal eagle saying pineapple doesn't belong on pizza is concrete evidence as to why Attorney Tom is better 😜🤣
Pineapple is amazing on pizza. I've eaten it since I was a kid.
I had to explain this basic concept to my teenage son. I would however yell THEATER in a crowded firehouse. 😉😂
There is nothing better than sitting down for Saturday morning coffee and I get a 1st Amendment drop from Legal Eagle.
Yes there is. Don't be silly.
Great video! Being reminded and learning about just how powerful our rights are is something that doesn't happen as often as it should. Thank you and please keep these videos coming!
Quite a range on the popularity of these misconceptions. I have never heard someone use the "fire in a crowded theatre" one to LITERALLY mean you cannot use the word "fire", it's always been a shorthand for "you can't intentionally cause a panic". Maybe my experience is not representative, though.
Misconception #3 is certainly all over the place, though.
Me neither honestly, like it would be cool if he brought up specific examples & explained why he thought they meant it literally??
One importance nuance that’s often lost: just because speech is legally allowed doesn’t mean the speaker won’t face social consequences for it. Thank you for pointing that out.
As the saying goes, your right to freedom of speech does not mean you have freedom from criticism.
Absolutely. The big difference between civil society and legal society.
People act so surprised when consequences happen. It’s kind of funny and sad at the same time.
In assassin’s creed odyssey, there’s a questline where your character talks with Socrates and you can choose from a couple options for how they respond. At one point, Socrates is talking about freedom of speech and one path of responses has your character essentially say “just because they won’t get arrested for slandering me doesn’t mean they won’t face the sharp end of my spear”. Obviously it’s a combat focused game set in Ancient Greece so “consequences” take the form of murder, and that’s not strictly applicable these days, but I feel like the sentiment is a good one. Free speech means the government can’t retaliate. It doesn’t mean you’re immune to consequences.
So “cancel culture” and the court of public opinion is protected speech?
OBJECTION: The quote of ‘shouting fire in a theatre’ is from Oliver Wendell Holmes JUNIOR, but the picture you show at 2:15 is of his father Oliver Wendell Holmes SENIOR
Good catch! Confirmed.
You "can" yell fire in a crowded theater, it's just that it "may" be illegal.
If people can put dead, smelly little fish on a pizza then I can absolutely pour on the pineapple. 🙂Thanks for another great video. Knowledge is power and certainly better than ignorant rhetoric.
the least they could do is use live smell fish, smh