Yelling "Fire" in the crowded theater.

I am currently in the middle of a discussion with my girlfriend about the riots going on across the world over a documentary which was posted on Youtube. I am not going to add a link to the video, if you are interested in watching it that is your business. I personally don't care to promote trash. I would rather link to another Uwe Boll film, to be quite honest. Ok... maybe not. But I digress.

My Girlfriend asked me to consider this arguement:
"It is like yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. If your intention is to cause chaos and distress, then you are equally culpable when it occurs."

I considered this line of logic, and found myself going back to the point that free will is still involved. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, people are running for their lives due to a perceived threat. It is all fight-or-flight, instincts have taken over, survival trumps all. When you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and there isn't one, your intention is to provoke chaos. When that chaos occurs the people who ran screaming did so without the benefit of being able to make rational decisions.

What has happened with the movie and the riots isn't the same, because people still have their capacity to make decisions. They have chosen to riot not out of survival or fear, but out of anger. Arguably, it doesn't matter what the medium is, be it political cartoon, a burning of their holy book by a group of redneck Christians, or a distasteful movie, these people chose to riot, chose to kill innocents only guilty of sharing a national origin. That isn't fight-or-flight... that is murder.

Just because we, as individuals, become upset doesn't justify bad behavior. It would be nice to believe that "Suzie MADE me kick the dog", but it is terribly difficult to force someone to exercise your will. Mind control helps, but even deep hypnosis has its limits. No, Suzie can't force upon you decisions against your will. You will always have a choice, the ability to say "Yes" or "No", and that is why the freedom of Speech is so difficult to understand sometimes. Just because a person has burned a flag doesn't mean he is unpatriotic, though it may look that way. The messenger is so separate from the recipient. What I meant to say has very little to do with what you heard me say, so how can I be responsible for what you do next?

Or can I? At which point do we have to turn around to the bullies and say "OK, asshole, what you are doing is wrong"? Freedom of Speech is important. I can say whatever I want about your momma, and as soon as you hit me you are the bad-guy. Is it ok to incite people with the intent to cause chaos, simply because the freedom of Speech is a protected right? At which point do our intentions warrant criminal investigation, even though the violence was the conscious actions of other parties. My girlfriend suggests there is too much gray-area, that if the intent of the cartoonist was to lampoon that is one thing, but if the movie-creator intended to cause global violence that is another.

Even as I fear the idea of inhibiting speech just because it is offensive, she makes the argument that 'offending with the intent to provoke' is wrong; as criminal as the violence it provokes. Interesting argument. It certainly makes a case against bullies. But does it leave the door too open to vague interpretation? Can "consciously provocative and incendiary speech" be legitimately separated from "offensive but unintentionally provocative speech"? If someone thinks "Man, this is gonna piss off Christians" then should the speaker be culpable for having incited the violent reactions of any listeners?

If someone speaks out against war and is shot by a conservative nut-job, who all is at fault; the shooter as well as the incendiary speaker whose comments provoked such a response? If a bully talks about a kid's mom until the kid snaps and slugs the bully in the stomach, who all is culpable? If a man rides into the middle of town bearing a Nazi flag and is hit by a beer bottle from an alleyway, who is in the wrong? What if it is an American Flag? What if it is an American flag on fire? What if it is a Mexican flag on fire?

I gotta tell ya, I am torn. I can see both sides to this all too clear. The Freedom of Speech is such an important right of a free society. But it is ugly and dangerous. It is perhaps the most valuable tool available to a free society; the ability to speak out against an authority that would keep you quiet in its own best interest. But it comes with a price; some people won't want to hear what could potentially be said. Finding the rationale to limit that freedom, based on political advantage, fear, or any possible reason is a slippery slope with dire consequences. I don't think it should be considered readily, lightly, or with an eye to using it to band-aid a bruised foreign ego.