FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" phrase comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States[1]. Writing for the majority (actually it was a unanimous decision), Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Many people nod their heads at this example, but they forget that Holmes was using it to justify the imprisonment of a man for leafletting against the draft. Those who earnestly reference "fire in a crowded theater" would likely stop if they knew its history. If anything, it argues against their point.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The idea that the history of a phrase or word dictates its meaning is patently absurd. If that were the case, you would be equally appalled by a man calling himself an "ordinary guy"… which comes from Guy Fawkes, a failed 17th century religious terrorist.

I don't think that's the same at all. I gave an example of a unique phrase where people agree with the original sentiment –even the exact words– of Holmes, only to backtrack when they discover what those words were used to justify. Your example is a single word whose various meanings are now completely disconnected from Guy Fawkes or religious extremism.

>>> "You will change the atmosphere by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and once it's done, there is no going back."

>>> "Posturing language exists to make a claim to credibility. It serves a real purpose and is used in an instrumental way, for the purpose of conducting business on the terms of those who use it."

>>> "enabling their threats to be real to some degree."

>>> "There is no reason to deny him the possibility of simply being a bad human being who is in need of careful monitoring by society."

Do you realize what you're advocating here? Also, referencing "fire in a crowded theater" is usually looked upon as a canary for those who don't know what they're talking about in regards to free speech

I don't think I'm following, other than the implication that chipsy is ignorant about free speech. For the sake of discussion, why not spell out your concerns?

we don't jail people for being "slightly sociopathic" "assholes", we jail them for breaking the law. Attempting to construe someone's unrelated speech, even as sociopathic as it may come off, as justification for jailing them (remember, for securities fraud) is terribly dishonest and a very dangerous slippery slope.

Also, by the way, threatening speech is technically protected under the first amendment [1]. Dunno why you brought up the government/public opinion topic.

Here's a lawyer, something I am not, on the matter, although I think we're devolving from my initial point: [0] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne... [1] https://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackne...

To address my empathy comment, I think it's in very poor taste to declare someone "sociopathic" (i.e. shades of mentally ill) if you're not a doctor, close friend/family member, or otherwise licensed professional. Doubly so to make such a judgement based off a small sampling of online commentary. We should all strive to be empathetic and employ a principle of charity when making such judgements, especially before we know the facts.

Well, no, I was specifically responding to the idea that he's a bad person because he made a few particular comments in a fricken' hip hop interview.