Talk:Shouting fire in a crowded theater

message: Hitchens is an idiot. It's absurd to cite his infantile rants in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitchens

message: 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)
replies: text: They need to be merged.  A merge notice should be placed.  -Husnock 01:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Building codes

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Fraud

message: No one yelled "Fire!" during this disaster. Why is it under that heading?76.69.49.219 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Barnsley Public Hall disaster

message: I think the name of this page is a little too specific, and goes against the fact that the Italian Hall disaster occured in a non-theater building.  The information in this page would probably be easier to access if it was moved to a page titled "False emergency alerts" or something like that, and the new page can include similar scenerios like yelling "BOMB" at an airport or "GUN" at school, so we don't need a page for each of these examples. Thegargoylevine (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the name of this page

message: Should the saying be really considered a misquote? It omits the word "falsely", but I'd argue that it's implied - obviously, truthfully calling fire in a crowded theater isn't a crime. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Misquote?

message: I've removed the discussion of Jacob Hornberger's article from the Criticism section. It's not relevant to this article at all, and was only added (years ago) in an attempt to push a Libertarian agenda. Alereon (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you need to remove the reference to the rabid Libertarian Hitchens, who rants in an infantile manner that he is cleverer than Holmes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Jacob Hornberger Libertarian article 

message: How is "distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft" of imminent danger to anyone? I'm going to delete it if there's no source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.189.44 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Schenck v. United States. One does not have to agree with that US Supreme Court decision, but we cannot hide the fact that this is precisely the case for which the phrase was coined in the first place, according to the article. This is not just some random example pulled out of the air (such as "disturbing friars" or "claiming someone is a terrorist" from your previous edits). It is the prime example, without which this wikipedia article would not even exist. Whether or not it matches our own personal POV in 2011 of what constitutes an imminent danger is irrelevant. Ramsey2006 (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imminent Danger

message: Obviously, you have no freedom of speech while being in a theater. Even talking aloud about the weather might get you thrown out, and rightly so. That's not some libertarian fringe theory, though Rothbard explains it more clearly. This should be in the criticism section. Joepnl (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs expansion 

message: I propose moving this article to Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater because it contains what is being shouted in quotation marks, making the phrase more easily understood — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: Carlton Larson of UC Davis has just published a very nice article tracing the history of the phrase, examining the question of where Holmes got the idea in the first place, and why it's so often truncated. Anyone want to try using Larson's paper as a source? Or should we instead go for the sources Larson cites? DS (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larson's research