Re:Martin Shkreli indictment [pdf]
by dietrichepp on Thursday December 17, 2015 @06:25PM
(#10755446)
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.
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