FIRE!!!!!!!! haha just kidding. seriously though......
 

i'm tired of hearing the "yell fire in a crowded theater" arguement. do people have no mnds of their own? i'm not saying that some who believe it don't think that way independantly but it seems to me most are just getting it from their government class and just blindly believing it for the rest of their lives. my dad believes that the law should be obeyed for good or bad, but i didn't blindly pick that up frm him. in fact think a lot of our laws shouldn't even be getting enforced*cough*drug laws*cough* but that's another issue

indeed. I think that many people would be surprised to know how some laws came about. for instance, Gun Control laws originated with the "purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce unlawful homicides"

and that anti-marijuana laws were passed because (to quote a state senator from around 1918) "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff (referring to marijuana) is what makes them crazy."

Well, reguardless of how a law came into place, I'm too much of a coward to break many more sever than jaywalking.
As for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater... well, to paraphrase Will Rogers, no one was ever too safe overestimating the stupidity of the populus, and to paraphrase Terry Pratchett: (the IQ of a mob)=(IQ of least intellegent member of said mob)/(Total number of people in mob).

Since I usually have no conflict with the laws (my problems are more often found in the day-to-day administration and organization of the government), so while not "blindly following the law" I can be concidered a law abiding citizen.

"Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind... Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."
- Harry J. Anslinger, Director of the FBN (now DEA) testifying before Congress in 1937, the year Marijuana was made to be illegal.

Like Lycanthrope said, there are ways of fighting injust laws other than blatantly breaking them. In my case, I support the political party that is closest to my beliefs (the libertarian party)

i looked into this phrase in a thread a while back. heres a short explaination from this link:
two interesting points: Schenck v. U.S was about a Communist (socialist?) disseminationg propaganda that, essentailly, told people to draft dodge. There was a law (at the time) that said its a federal offense to "interfere" with military conscription or recruiting. So Schenck was being prosecuted for telling people NOT to join the army during World War One.

"fire in a crowded theater"? not quite.

another interesting point: after an ernest debate with a college a few years later, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes agreed that his defense of the law was flawed and actually CHANGED his position in a later case.. but i seem to recall him being in the minority. i don't rememebr the later case either. I do recall that the 1919 decission was overturned in the 60s sometime.

The thing is, you can yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, provided that there actually is a fire. It's only a problem when you say it knowing that there really isn't a problem. We already have laws against libel and slander - saying things that you know not to be true with intent to harm another - and while those laws are technically a violation of free speech, I don't see anyone complaining about them. Unfortunately, the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy is used all to often to justify limiting free speech simply because the things being said could be inconvenient t someone, and that analogy really doesn't fit there.

the difference between libel and slander, and yelling "fire" to get a laugh out of people is that one can ruin people's lives and effect their careers, the other is most likely not meant to harm people but rather get a good laugh out of them. In that case they are probably subject to a mob beating anyway. but your last point i strongly agree with, i'm tired of people using it like that

A stampede caused by shouting "Fire" can easily lead to injuries and loss of life. It may seem funny, but it's no joke once you have a kid trampeld to death by a horde of panicked people.

yeah but theaters and other places catch fire all the time, and i haven't heard of people getting trampled due to the panic. if a credible person suggests there's a bomb in the building that might cause such a panic, but it's not likely to ever be believed since in bomb threats people are typically evacuated without being told why, tha's not the case with a fire

"All the time"? Well, I don't know what kind of deathtrap you watch your movies in, but have you considered that the reason why people might not mention the trampling is because the whole place is combusting around the hapless victims?

And I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I wanted to address the effects of starting a panic among a large group of people in an enclosed areas. It's abd enough when people get injured jostling for bargain items at a sale, but in a situation like the false fire, the consequences might be less palatable.