Shouting fire in a crowded theater

Last updated December 25, 2023

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).^[1]

The utterance of "fire!" in and of itself is not generally illegal within the United States: "sometimes you could yell 'fire" in a crowded theater without facing punishment. The theater may actually be on fire. Or you may reasonably believe that the theater is on fire".^[3] Furthermore, within the doctrine of first amendment protected free speech within the United States, yelling "fire!" as speech is not itself the legally problematic event, but rather, "there are scenarios in which intentionally lying about a fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede might lead to a disorderly conduct citation or similar charge."^[3]

Background

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, panics caused by false shouts of "fire" in crowded theaters and other venues were not uncommon.^[4] Most notably, the Canonsburg Opera House disaster of 1911 led to 26 deaths, and the 1913 Italian Hall disaster saw 73 people die in the crush that ensued from a false alarm in a crowded banquet hall.^[5]

The problem was widespread enough that the person falsely shouting "fire" became a stock character in popular writing, representing an example of foolish or villainous behavior.^[6]

Laws were enacted in some jurisdictions to protect the public from such panics, such as the Indianapolis municipal code of 1917, which made it illegal to "[c]ry out a false alarm of 'fire' in any church, public hall, theater, moving picture showroom, or any other building of a similar or different character, while the same is occupied by a public assemblage."^[7]^[8]

The first known use of the analogy in the context of free speech occurred in the 1918 trial of Eugene V. Debs.^[9] Debs was charged with violations of the Espionage Act of 1917 for an anti-war speech he had delivered in Canton, Ohio.^[10] In his closing argument, Debs offered as his sole legal defense that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.^[11] Federal prosecutor Edwin Wertz then argued in his closing rebuttal:^[12]

Now, he speaks about the Constitution of the United States giving him the authority to do what he did at Canton. The Constitution provides that there shall be no abridgement of free speech, it is true; yet it is a fact that a man in a crowded auditorium, or any theatre, who yells "fire" and there is no fire, and a panic ensues and someone is trampled to death, may be rightfully indicted and charged with murder, and may be convicted and sent to the electric chair for making such an outcry when there is no occasion for it. That is an abridgement of the right of free speech according to the defendant's idea.
...
According to his theory, a man could go into a crowded theatre, or even into this audience, and yell "fire" when there was no fire, and people trampled to death, and he would not be punished for it because the Constitution says he has the right of free speech.

Historians infer that Oliver Wendell Holmes read Wertz's speech while preparing his opinion in Debs v. United States and adopted the analogy for use in the Schenck case.^[9]^[13]^[14]

The Schenck case

Decision

Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued that this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Legacy

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, in which the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."^[1]^[15] The test in Brandenburg is the current Supreme Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to punish speech after it occurs. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has become synonymous with speech that, because of its danger of provoking violence, is not protected by the First Amendment.

Ultimately, whether it is legal in the United States to falsely shout "fire" in a theater depends on the circumstances in which it is done and the consequences of doing it. The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out. Similarly, state laws such as Colorado Revised Statute § 18-8-111 classify knowingly "false reporting of an emergency," including false alarms of fire, as a misdemeanour if the occupants of the building are caused to be evacuated or displaced, and a felony if the emergency response results in the serious bodily injury or death of another person. Somewhat more trivially, in some states it is a crime just to knowingly make a false report - or knowingly cause a false report to be made - of an emergency to emergency services. In the statute just cited, for example, it is a crime to knowingly cause "a false alarm of fire" to be transmitted to "any...government agency which deals with emergencies involving danger to life or property." This crime could plausibly be made out where, for instance, in response to the false shout, an innocent bystander calls emergency services to report the fire, and this is found to have been such a foreseeable response to the shouts that the shouter is deemed to have caused the false report to be made.

Criticism

Christopher M. Finan, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, writes that Justice Holmes began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from free-speech activists. He also met the legal scholar Zechariah Chafee and discussed his Harvard Law Review article "Freedom of Speech in War Times".^[16]^[17] According to Finan, Holmes's change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. Holmes and Brandeis said that "a silly leaflet by an unknown man" should not be considered illegal.^[16]^[18] Chafee argued in Free Speech in the United States that a better analogy in Schenck might be a man who stands in a theatre and warns the audience that there are not enough fire exits.^[19]^[20]

In his introductory remarks to a 2006 debate in defense of free speech, writer Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgment by opening "FIRE! Fire, fire... fire. Now you've heard it", before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the "Yiddish speaking socialists" protesting America's entry into World War I, who were imprisoned by the Court's decision, "were the real fire fighters, were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire, in a very crowded theatre indeed. And who is to decide?"^[21]^[22]

Writer Emma Camp has pointed out that Schenck v. United States did not actually address the question of whether or not it is illegal to "shout fire in a crowded theater", since this analogy was simply non-binding dictum used to illustrate Justice Holmes' point.^[23]

Ken White, an attorney and owner of Popehat, has stated that even though Schenck v. United States affirmed that the First Amendment is not absolute, "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" is frequently used as a red herring when discussing whether or not a particular instance of speech falls under exceptions set by the Supreme Court. Citing the later ruling of United States v. Stevens , White also pointed out that the currently accepted limitations to the First Amendment are narrow and well-defined, and the court is unlikely to introduce new ones based on balancing the value that some speech possesses with the potential harm it does to society.^[24]^[25]

Historical instances

People have falsely shouted "Fire!" or been misheard in crowded public venues and caused panics on several occasions, such as:

At Mount Morris Theater, Harlem, New York City in September 1884. During the fire scene of "Storm Beaten", someone in the gallery shouted "Fire!" three times. The performance continued and a roundsman and a policeman arrested a young man.^[26]
In the Shiloh Baptist Church stampede, Birmingham, Alabama on September 19, 1902. Over 100 people died when someone in the choir yelled, "There's a fight!". "Fight" was misheard as "fire" in a crowded church of approximately 3000 people, causing a panic and crush.^[27]
In the Italian Hall disaster, Calumet, Michigan on December 24, 1913. Seventy-three men, women, and children, mostly striking mine workers and their families, were killed in a crush when someone falsely shouted "Fire!" at a crowded Christmas party.^[28]
In the Basilica of St. Teresa, Caracas, Venezuela on 9 Apr 1952. 50 people died after someone shouted "Fire!". 40 people were arrested in connection with the crush.^[29]^[30]^[31]
At Raymond Cinema 3, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, on December 26, 1987, a 13-year-old girl died from internal haemorrhage while many moviegoers were injured due to a crush that began when a man shouted "Sunog!" (lit. 'Fire!') three times at the packed theater during an evening screening of the Metro Manila Film Festival entry Huwag Mong Buhayin ang Bangkay .^[32]

In contrast, during the Brooklyn Theatre fire of December 5, 1876, theatre staff were reluctant to cause a panic by shouting fire and instead pretended that the fire was part of the performance. This delayed the evacuation, leading to a death toll of at least 278.

Related Research Articles

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Created by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to refine the bad tendency test, it was never fully adopted and both tests were ultimately replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951) were overturned.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society. Whitney was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. Holmes is one of the most widely cited Supreme Court justices and among the most influential American judges in history, noted for his long service, pithy opinions—particularly those on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy—and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures. Holmes retired from the court at the age of 90, an unbeaten record for oldest justice on the Supreme Court. He previously served as a Brevet Colonel in the American Civil War, in which he was wounded three times, as an associate justice and chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and as Weld Professor of Law at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. His positions, distinctive personality, and writing style made him a popular figure, especially with American progressives.

The Sedition Act of 1918 was an Act of the United States Congress that extended the Espionage Act of 1917 to cover a broader range of offenses, notably speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government bonds.

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 which made it a criminal offense to urge the curtailment of production of the materials necessary to wage the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

"Imminent lawless action" is one of several legal standards American courts use to determine whether certain speech is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The standard was first established in 1969 in the United States Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211 (1919), was a United States Supreme Court decision, relevant for US labor law and constitutional law, that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917.

<i>Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten</i> 1917 federal district court case in First Amendment law

Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, 244 F. 535, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that addressed advocacy of illegal activity under the First Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Zechariah Chafee</span> American lawyer (1885–1957)

Zechariah Chafee Jr. was an American judicial philosopher and civil rights advocate, described as "possibly the most important First Amendment scholar of the first half of the twentieth century" by Richard Primus. Chafee's avid defense of freedom of speech led to Senator Joseph McCarthy calling him "dangerous" to America.

In United States law, the bad tendency principle was a test that permitted restriction of freedom of speech by government if it is believed that a form of speech has a sole tendency to incite or cause illegal activity. The principle, formulated in Patterson v. Colorado (1907), was seemingly overturned with the "clear and present danger" principle used in the landmark case Schenck v. United States (1919), as stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Yet eight months later, at the start of the next term in Abrams v. United States (1919), the Court again used the bad tendency test to uphold the conviction of a Russian immigrant who published and distributed leaflets calling for a general strike and otherwise advocated revolutionary, anarchist, and socialist views. Holmes dissented in Abrams, explaining how the clear and present danger test should be employed to overturn Abrams' conviction. The re-emergence of the bad tendency test resulted in a string of cases after Abrams employing that test, including Whitney v. California (1927), where a woman was convicted simply because of her association with the Communist Party. The court ruled unanimously that although she had not committed any crimes, her relationship with the Communists represented a "bad tendency" and thus was unprotected. The "bad tendency" test was finally overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and was replaced by the "imminent lawless action" test.

Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago that banned speech that "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951), was a United States Supreme Court case finding a requirement mandating a permit to speak on religious issues in public was unconstitutional. It was argued October 17, 1950, and decided January 15, 1951, 8–1. Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion for the Court. Justice Black and Justice Frankfurter concurred in the result only. Justice Jackson dissented.

Speech crimes are certain kinds of speech that are criminalized by promulgated laws or rules. Criminal speech is a direct preemptive restriction on freedom of speech, and the broader concept of freedom of expression.

<i>Freedom for the Thought That We Hate</i> 2007 non-fiction book

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Schenck v. United States (1919), Whitney v. California (1927), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).

Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.

The Canonsburg Opera House disaster occurred on August 26, 1911 in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. A false shout of "fire" triggered a panic that killed twenty-six people.

References

1 2 Timm, Trevor (November 2, 2012). "It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote". The Atlantic . Retrieved September 5, 2023.
↑ Volokh, Eugene (May 11, 2015). "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". Washington Post . Retrieved June 20, 2020.
1 2 Kosseff, Jeff (October 24, 2023). "How to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater". Reason . Retrieved October 27, 2023.
↑ Larson 2015, pp. 192–196.
↑ Larson 2015, p. 187.
↑ Larson 2015, pp. 196–200.
↑ Larson 2015, p. 201.
↑ Codification of 1917: Municipal Code of the City of Indianapolis. Common Council of the City of Indianapolis. 1917. p. 233.
1 2 Larson 2015, p. 188.
↑ Freeberg 2008, pp. 77–79.
↑ Freeberg 2008, pp. 100–102.
↑ "Debs v. United States appellate record and briefs". p. 249. Retrieved January 14, 2023– via Internet Archive.
↑ Healy 2013, p. 97.
↑ Shapiro, Fred R., ed. (2021). The New Yale Book of Quotation s. Yale University Press. p. 388. ISBN 9780300262780.
↑ Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969)
1 2 Finan, Christopher M. (2007). From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act: a history of the fight for free speech in America . Beacon Press. pp. 27–37. ISBN 9780807044285 . Retrieved March 25, 2011.
↑ Chafee, Zechariah (1919). "Freedom of Speech in Wartime". Harvard Law Review . 32 (8): 932–973. doi:10.2307/1327107. JSTOR 1327107.
↑ Leuchtenburg, William E. (1958). The Perils of Prosperity, 1914-32. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 43. OCLC 173348.
↑ Chafee, Zechariah (1941). Free Speech in the United States. Harvard University Press. p. 15. OCLC 1197919.
↑ Zinn, Howard (August 2, 2005). A People's History of the United States. HarperCollins. p. 366. ISBN 0060838655 . Retrieved June 20, 2012.
↑ Hitchens, Christopher. Christopher Hitchens – Free Speech Part 1. Archived from the original on December 13, 2021. Retrieved June 20, 2012– via YouTube.
↑ Hitchens, Christopher (November 15, 2006). "Fire in a Crowded Theatre" (PDF). Retrieved June 20, 2012.
↑ Camp, Emma (October 27, 2022). "Yes, You Can Yell 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater". Reason .
↑ White, Ken (June 18, 2018). "Fire in a Crowded Theater". Legal Talk Network. Retrieved August 7, 2023.
↑ White, Ken (December 14, 2022). "'The First Amendment Isn't Absolute.' Sure, But So What?". Popehat . Retrieved August 7, 2023– via SubStack.com.
↑ "A Cry of Fire in a Crowded Theater" (PDF). The New York Times . September 25, 1884. p. 4.
↑ "Boston Evening Transcript - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. Retrieved April 30, 2021.
↑ "The Italian Hall Disaster, Calumet, Michigan". www.genealogia.fi. Archived from the original on November 4, 2013. Retrieved April 30, 2021.
↑ "53 Killed in Church Panic". Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate. Newcastle, New South Wales. April 12, 1952. p. 3. Retrieved October 26, 2023– via Trove.
↑ "Stampede in Church Planned". Morning Bulletin. Rockhampton, Queensland. April 15, 1952. p. 1. Retrieved October 26, 2023– via Trove.
↑ "40 Arrests in Sequel to Deaths". West Australian. Perth. April 15, 1952. p. 6. Retrieved October 26, 2023– via Trove.
↑ Macapagal, Antonio (December 28, 1987). "Girl dies, many hurt in theater stampede". Manila Standard . Standard Publications. p. 1. Retrieved July 22, 2021.

Sources

Freeberg, Ernest (2008). Democracy's Prisoner: Eugene V. Debs, the Great War, and the Right to Dissent. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674027923.
Healy, Thomas (2013). The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind – and Changed the History of Free Speech in America. New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 9780805094565.
Larson, Carlton F. W. (October 2015). "'Shouting "Fire" in a Theater': The Life and Times of Constitutional Law's Most Enduring Analogy". William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. Williamsburg, Virginia: College of William & Mary. 24 (1): 181–212. Retrieved January 14, 2023.