Shouting 'Fire!' In A Crowded Theatre

Here is a good account of where Mark Steyn hit the target and missed a few too when he met the Canadian Standing Committee on Government Agencies of the Ontario legislature recently, to explain why he is unimpressed with the state of free speech in Canada:

Looking back, I can’t help but think that Steyn made the cardinal mistake of trying to be clever – witty, thoughtful, sardonic, sarcastic, or simply just engaged – with the committee.

Bureacracies aren’t clever, and they react to any attempt to take the ritual of public oversight and consultation beyond a narrow rhetorical playing field with the impatience and even hostility a judge has for anyone who tries to defend themselves in court.

This point came up:

Steyn reacts with similar dismay to a question from MPP David Zimmer, who uses the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" metaphor to rather unspecific effect. Even a week later, I’m not sure what Zimmer was asking, or the point he was trying to make, or even the strength of his conviction that there’s possibly something wrong with fires, or yelling, or crowded theatres.

Steyn reacts with palpable disgust – he’s heard this one before, and can’t disguise his impatience, but it prompts what comes off as a rant about the history of theatre electrification drawn on his own extensive knowledge of musical theatre.

I previously looked at this Fire!/Theatre cliche here and here.

It underpins a puerile but sly collectivist argument that goes something like this:

we of course champion free speech as a core value
but, of course, it has limits – as does everything
for example, no-one accepts that someone who recklessly cries Fire! in a crowded theatre should escape official sanction
by extension, anyone whose words cause or might cause any harm or distress to someone else has to be held responsible
especially when those words are hateful or likely to be taken as hurtful by vulnerable people and communities
and unfortunately there are lots of categories of hateful language which need to be regulated for these very sound reasons
so the people who lay down the rules must be the people who have the best insights into these issues and the hurt caused by hate speech, as anything else would or could be hurtful
which means us
so, you over there arguing that marriage has to be defined as referring only to a man and woman – shut up. Now.
and you too – criticising the Obama government when it is trying to put right all the fascist wrongs of Bushitler is tantamount to blocking attempts to stop hate speech, and so has to be stopped too.
and by the way, if some communities or individuals are provoked beyond endurance by hate speech and start attacking or even beheading people, those who provoked them are to blame
got all that?
good.
Now keep quiet.