The example when coined almost certainly was a reference to the famous Italian Hall Disaster in which it seems 73 people died because of someone falsely yelling “fire”.
Fire suppression systems have gotten better, we don’t overcrowd theaters anymore, and we now use electricity for lighting instead of burning things, so fires are less common and not as dangerous.
This. This this this. I feel like the “fire in a crowded theater” example is a pretty painfully outdated one. If you imagine a more crowded theater made of dry wood with no sprinklers/fire extinguishers, it becomes a lot more reasonable to expect people to panic at the thought of a fire.
I think the prevalence of the “falsely shouting fire in theater” quote is a product of usage of that quote in an important freedom speech decision (that ultimately ruled against free speech).
Thomblake suggests convincingly that the quote was referencing a then recent disaster, but you are correct that the circumstances in theaters today are so different that the quote lacks the same impact as when it was written. In other words, the same legal reasoning today would probably be supported by a more culturally relevant example.
For what it is worth, the legal standard on liability for possible harm from speech is different (and more speech protective) than the decision in the Schenk case from which the quote originates.
Yes, but the danger of a false call of “Fire!” lies in the subsequent stampede (and, even if no one is hurt, the inevitable disruption of everyone’s prior activity).
Wedrifid was saying that people aren’t that likely to stampede or even evacuate if someone yells “fire” now. I think he’s right. If I started shouting “fire” right now I think the people around me would think I’d snapped and would at the least ask what I was seeing that they weren’t.
(If I actually wanted people to listen to me I would start by asking “do you smell fire?” to the person next to me. Two people shouting fire is much less likely to be someone hallucinating.)
Reality is more complicated than that. Grandparent is right about deaths from fire in many parts of the world. The following deals with the fire death rate from 1979 to 1992.
The U.S. fire death rate fell 46.3 percent, from 36.3 fire deaths per million population in 1979 to 19.5 fire deaths per million population in 1992. As shown in Figure 2, however, this trend was not limited to the United States; rather it was international. Of the countries considered, only Hungary and Denmark recorded increases in their rates of fire deaths over that period – all the other countries lowered their fire death rates. The reduction in fire deaths for the United States (46 percent, or 16.8 fire deaths per million population) was the largest absolute and relative drop of any of the countries shown – almost twice the size of the next biggest drop (the United Kingdom, with a reduction of 38 percent, or 9.0 fire deaths per million population).
Reality is more complicated than that. Parent is right about deaths from fire in many parts of the world.
(By convention there the reference is to ‘grandparent’, not ‘parent’. Context is sufficient here to correct the meaning but in less clear circumstances it would be misleading.)
“These kinds of things” are public perception and, in particular, public perception of risks and what to be afraid of. For these kinds of things single datapoints matter a great deal. Prime example: 9/11.
Public perception of risks notoriously does not care about statistics.
I see, I took you to be responding only to jkaufman’s comment.
Since rare dangers typically get more publicity than common dangers, we might even expect that under many circumstances public angst may increase as the actual danger decreases (due to the remaining incidents getting overreported).
You know… if I actually yelled “Fire!” in a theater I think I’d just end up with people looking at me like I was a dick.
The example when coined almost certainly was a reference to the famous Italian Hall Disaster in which it seems 73 people died because of someone falsely yelling “fire”.
If you shout from the middle of the crowd—probably so. If you enter—visibly exhalirated—just to shout “Fire!”, there is a risk.
Fire suppression systems have gotten better, we don’t overcrowd theaters anymore, and we now use electricity for lighting instead of burning things, so fires are less common and not as dangerous.
This. This this this. I feel like the “fire in a crowded theater” example is a pretty painfully outdated one. If you imagine a more crowded theater made of dry wood with no sprinklers/fire extinguishers, it becomes a lot more reasonable to expect people to panic at the thought of a fire.
I think the prevalence of the “falsely shouting fire in theater” quote is a product of usage of that quote in an important freedom speech decision (that ultimately ruled against free speech).
Thomblake suggests convincingly that the quote was referencing a then recent disaster, but you are correct that the circumstances in theaters today are so different that the quote lacks the same impact as when it was written. In other words, the same legal reasoning today would probably be supported by a more culturally relevant example.
For what it is worth, the legal standard on liability for possible harm from speech is different (and more speech protective) than the decision in the Schenk case from which the quote originates.
Yes, but the danger of a false call of “Fire!” lies in the subsequent stampede (and, even if no one is hurt, the inevitable disruption of everyone’s prior activity).
Wedrifid was saying that people aren’t that likely to stampede or even evacuate if someone yells “fire” now. I think he’s right. If I started shouting “fire” right now I think the people around me would think I’d snapped and would at the least ask what I was seeing that they weren’t.
(If I actually wanted people to listen to me I would start by asking “do you smell fire?” to the person next to me. Two people shouting fire is much less likely to be someone hallucinating.)
Real life, 2007 -- 100 dead.
Real life, 2013 -- 242 dead.
Reality is more complicated than that. Grandparent is right about deaths from fire in many parts of the world. The following deals with the fire death rate from 1979 to 1992.
-- “Fire Death Rate Trends: An International Perspective”
For the US in particular, this trend has continued into the present.
We leave as an exercise to the reader what exactly the flaw in your argument was.
(By convention there the reference is to ‘grandparent’, not ‘parent’. Context is sufficient here to correct the meaning but in less clear circumstances it would be misleading.)
Fixed.
Single datapoints rarely matter with these kinds of things. The overall statistics strongly support the grandparent’s point.
“These kinds of things” are public perception and, in particular, public perception of risks and what to be afraid of. For these kinds of things single datapoints matter a great deal. Prime example: 9/11.
Public perception of risks notoriously does not care about statistics.
I see, I took you to be responding only to jkaufman’s comment.
Since rare dangers typically get more publicity than common dangers, we might even expect that under many circumstances public angst may increase as the actual danger decreases (due to the remaining incidents getting overreported).
Nowadays you might also get charged with making terrorist threats.
Speaking of nowadays, screaming “It’s a bomb, it’s going to blow” is probably going to be much more effective at creating stampedes...
Or, for that matter, held without charge or trial.
Or perhaps “Look! It’s Justin Bieber and he’s taking his shirt off!”.