Bill Scott said:
> It is interesting and perhaps ironic to consider the Oliver Wendall
> Holmes opinion about the line over which free speech should be
> restricted. We should not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded
> theater when there is no fire. In my case, that is exactly what the
> anonymous letter writer and the administrators here have been doing.
Interesting point. That time-worn maxim also occurred to me in this case,
but I see it differently. The problem for the audience when someone
yells "fire" in a crowded theatre is to determine whether there really is
a danger or whether it's merely a prank. If they can't tell and decide
the danger is real when it's merely a prank, people could get hurt in the
ensuing rampage. But if they decide it's merely a prank when there really
is a fire, even more people could be injured.
So it might be in Bill's case. He's made an ambiguous statement ("I
responded to the news by thinking of a list of people I would blow away
at my school in a similar way"). The administration has to decide whether
the risk is real or harmless. So it's Bill who's crying "fire" and the
administration the audience who must decide whether the threat is real.
If this "fire" rule provides a justification for acceptable limits on
free speech, it would mean that Bill does not have the free speech right
to make an ambiguous statement, even merely to make a point or in jest,
if that statement could possibly be interpreted as representing a real
danger.
For what it's worth, Wikipedia says that the case in which Holmes made
his "fire" observation was later overturned. Instead, in Brandenburg v.
Ohio, it was ruled "that speech could only be banned when it was
directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot),
the test which remains until this day" [in the USA, of course]. As such
incitement does not appear to be present in Bill's remark, it would seem
that contrary to the "fire in a crowded theatre" principle, he would be
allowed to make such a remark under the First Amendment of the US
constitution.
Of course, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Emeritus
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2600 College St.
Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of
psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
