Is it true that in the United States you can’t scream "Fire!" In a crowded theater?

Periodically, as an example of the fact that freedom of speech even in the United States has its own boundaries, people mention a somewhat unusual local law. We checked whether a similar legislative act is acting in the USA.

In 2011, during a meeting with Russian students, Deputy Secretary of State Michael Pozner He noted that the restrictions on the Internet should be treated in the same way as the freedom of statement: “In the USA there is a law that prohibits screaming“ fire! ” With a large number of people nearby. ” Director of the Ukrainian film club at Columbia University (New York) Yuri Shevchuk In 2015, he said that “the US Constitutional Court confirmed ... A citizen has no right to shout“ fire! ” In the completed cinema. " But on the portal "Gazeta.ru" and in the article "Freedom of speech" on the site Alegsaonline.com It is argued that such a decision once made a not constitutional, but the US Supreme Court. Expert of the Valdai International Discussion Club Rhine Mullerson In 2017, he called this ban the only restriction of freedom of speech in the United States. Wrote about such restrictions and users in social networks.

Freedom of speech is basic value for the United States of America, which is reflected in federal legislation. The first amendment The US Constitution says: “Congress should not issue laws establishing any religion or prohibiting its free confession that limit freedom of speech or press or the right of the people peacefully gather and appeal to the government with petitions for satisfaction of complaints.” However, due to the lack of definition of the concept of “freedom of speech” in the Constitution, certain cases periodically become the subject of consideration by the US Supreme Court (the Constitutional Court in the country is not in the country), and the decisions made have the power of the precedent.

So, on the official website of the US Judicial System you can to knowthat freedom of speech includes the right:
1. Do not speak (including not to salute the flag);
2. To wear a sleeve in the school in protest against the war;
3. Use certain offensive words and phrases to report political messages;
4. sacrifice money for political campaigns;
5. advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions);
6. carry out symbolic actions (for example, burn the flag in protest).

And, on the contrary, freedom of speech does not include the right:
1. Simult illegal actions;
2. Make or distribute obscene materials;
3. Burn draft cards in anti -war protest;
4. allow students to print articles in the school newspaper contrary to the objections of the school administration;
5. To pronounce an obscene speech at the event of an educational institution, being its students;
6. To support the illegal use of drugs at the event of an educational institution, being its students.

As you can see, the case of interest to us in this selection is not mentioned. However, incitement to illegal actions and anti -war protests are directly related to two historical matters that are important for our analysis. Both cases are connected with Act of espionage 1917, which made the punishable any actions that interfere with the military operations of the United States, including the statements against the draft. The defendants of the affairs of steel Eugene Debs - pacifist who opposed the First World War, and Charles T. Shenk - The Secretary General of the US Socialist Party, who, through the brochures, convinced the military liable for military service. Despite the attempts of lawyers to refer to the first correction, both suspects were found guilty, and in the case of Debs (1918), the prosecutor Edwin Vertz, conducting a parallel, said: “If a person screams“ Fire! ”In a crowded audience or in the theater” In the absence of this, and as a result of panic, someone will be sunk to death, then this person can be rightly accused of committing a murder. ”

Through the appeal, the case reached the Supreme Court, where in 1919, Judge Oliver Uendell Holms-Ml. He upheld the decision of the lower court. Obviously, he was well acquainted with the materials of the Debs case, because a week before considering the appeal, already at the trial in the Schenk case, he reinforced his argument as an identical analogy: “Even the most stringent defense of freedom of speech will not be able to protect a person who lies the false“ Fire! ” In a crowded theater and thereby cause a panic. ”

As you can see, in the phrase of Holmes-Ml. There is a significant detail that distinguishes it from the version we are considering: the lawyer spoke only about the false screams “Fire!”, And not about the reasonable. It is equally important that this phrase - both in the version of Holmes and in the Vyernet version - was nothing more than an analogy and did not contain any references to a specific law. It was after she was voiced by the eminent lawyer Holmes, the expression “scream” fire! ” in a crowded theater "became winged (as in English, and in Russian language) and since then it has been used in situations where a person wants to make it clear that freedom of speech is not unlimited. For example, in 2021 of it I used it US President Joe Biden, saying that not a single amendment to the Constitution is absolute. Nevertheless, as we have convinced, in parallel with the idiom, an idea of ​​a certain decision of the American court about the cries "Fire!" Lives with an idiom. In a crowded theater.

Was there any reason for American judges in the 1910s to draw similar analogies? Undoubtedly. At the turn of the XIX - XX centuries, false screams about the fire caused dozens of cases deaths In public places in the United States and Great Britain. In two incidents alone in 1911 and 1913 in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the number of victims in artificially triggered tins was about 100 people in total. So the image of an attacker shouting "Fire!" In the theater, at that time was quite stable and suggested for analogy.

Of course, persons who deliberately and without reason cause panic in public places, initiating with their shouts (including a fire) dangerous crusts are responsible for American law. This is reflected in the legislation at the level of many states - for example, in Ohio (in Two places), Washington (c Two places), Colorado or California. However, a person who shouted "Fire!" (or “Bomb!”) In a crowded theater, more likely to be charged with an exclamation itself as for its consequences (for example, a panic or people getting injuries in a till), and then only if there was actually no fire. Moreover, if it is possible to prove that a person made a mistake, then words Lawyer, a specialist on the first correction of our Gevaili, will be justified. With the concept of freedom of speech, such legislative acts do not enter into a conflict, and a lawyer, whose comparison on this topic became winged, did not mean any specific federal law of the United States.

Photo on the cover: Wikipedia.

Most of the untruth

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. Is it true that in the United States the law prohibits cutting shortcuts from mattresses and pillows?
2. Is it true that in the USA it is forbidden to sell kinter surges?
3. Carlton F.W. Larson. "Shouting 'Fire' in a Theater: The Life and Times of Constitutional Law's Most Enduring Analyogy