Talk:Shouting fire in a crowded theater
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
hi. i made an edit. it's not pretty. might not be appropriate, but i think it is significant
Perhaps someone may consider disambiguating this article and [Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theatre]. It might even be better to just redirect the other one here. It would of course consign my very modest first attempt at editing an article to the trashbin of [history] :(, but this one seems to cover the topic better than the other.
I'd do it myself, but at this stage of the game it's beyond what I feel comfortable doing.
Puck 00:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- They need to be merged. A merge notice should be placed. -Husnock 01:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The full and more accurate expression is actually "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". If I go to a movie see a fire and inform people of it, I'd actually be a hero. Conversely, if there is no fire, claiming there was one would cause a stampede and people would get hurt.
[edit] Building codes
The article states:
(This ruling preceded the adoption of building codes, and theatergoers faced a real possibility of being unable to escape the building in an emergency due to narrow aisles and jammed doors.)
Does this mean to suggest that the court would have ruled differently today? I hope not! Even with building codes, the dangers of trampling or of not getting out of the building are still all too real. I'd like to remove this line. Comments? --Keeves 18:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
The section on libertarian views towards this seems to violate WP:NPOV, since there aren't any other modern competing views listed. Perhaps this section could be expanded on?
--Tjohns ✎ 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fraud
I removed the claim that
- Rick Cohen has criticized that shouting "fire" is an issue of fraud, not an issue of free speech, and fraud laws should prevent it. (http://www.ncrp.org/downloads/RPArchives/RP-Spring2003-Free_Speech_or_Fraud.pdf)
for two reasons: First, Cohen's article is about alleged fraud underlying telemarketing. The phrase "shouting fire" appears only to underline that not everything is protected by the first amendment (shouting fire is not protected, fraud is not protected). Secondly, fraud is a deception made for personal gain; the point in forbidding to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater is not the illicit gain that the perpetrator may have, but rather the potential damage his/her action can cause. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
wow, that criticism by the libertarian is stupid. can i remove it?... if an action causes harm to other people, then the action is under the jurisdiction of the government, not the private owner of the theater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.105.119 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
