The Man Who Cries Wolf in a Packed Auditorium
Democratic Candidate's Use of a Historic Phrase
During the Vice-Presidential debate, Tim Walz, the Democratic candidate, invoked the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" to defend restrictions on free speech. Interestingly, he himself appears to be the person who is metaphorically causing panic in a packed auditorium.
Origins of the Phrase
The phrase can be traced back to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States. Holmes stated that it's not right to falsely cry fire. The case was about the right to protest against war, and Schenck was later largely reversed. However, the phrase has endured.
Understanding the Phrase's Context
When we consider why it's wrong to cry fire in a crowded theater, it becomes clear that Walz's use of the phrase is somewhat misguided. The assumption here is that the person causing the alarm is aware that there's no fire and is intentionally trying to create panic.
Visualizing the Scenario
Picture this: you're in a cinema and a man in the row ahead starts yelling "Fire!" More often than not, you'd think of him as a troublemaker, especially if there are no visible signs of fire. In today's world, when fire alarms ring in a school or office building, do we panic? We've become accustomed to false alarms, even when it comes to something as serious as fire.
Understanding the Panic
Even if the person manages to create panic, consider how this panic unfolds. A few people in the theater get scared and rush towards the exit. Seeing this, others also start panicking. The people panicking have little time to evaluate if there's a real threat.
Ethical Implications
The person causing the panic is violating the agreement he made with the theater. Ethically, his actions are wrong because it's not right to lie or disrupt the show and cause panic.
Comparing with Walz's Actions
Does this scenario resemble the activities that Walz wants to censor? Whether it's about public health or political claims, the similarities are minimal.
Differentiating the Scenarios
Firstly, determining whether there's a fire in the theater is simple. After a brief investigation, everyone will agree that there either is a fire or there isn't. However, the claims that Walz wants to censor aren't as straightforward. They involve complex social matters and require judgment after considering different interpretations. People won't agree immediately.
Secondly, when someone yells fire in a crowded theater, there's an immediate sense of urgency. Nobody wants to suffocate or burn in a fire. But when someone listens to a podcast or reads content online, they have time to consult with others and explore different perspectives. They have time to think. We learn to sift through different interpretations and form our own judgments.
Thirdly, for controversial public matters, people will continue to have different opinions, even after spending a lot of time researching the issue. They may still disagree even after twenty years. This is vastly different from a fire in a theater.
Walz's Resemblance to the Man in the Theater
In some ways, Walz is similar to the man who cries wolf in a packed auditorium. He claims a significant danger and incites people to support a political program. But after hearing the cries—“Save democracy!”, “Eradicate disinformation!”—we have time to consult, discuss, and reflect, using our extensive moral and intellectual capacities. Nothing admits dishonesty like censorship.
Bottom Line
The metaphor of shouting fire in a crowded theater has been used to justify limitations on free speech. Yet, it's important to remember that the context and implications of this phrase are vastly different from the complex social issues that often come under the scanner for censorship. What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
