It is a commenly held belief that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a crime because of the potential for harm to persons and property. It is one of the most commen examples given for limiting freedom of speech even though the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...". This view is proposed as a equaly valid rationale for limiting crypto, virus technology, drugs, etc. My question to the list is would it be a crime if you were alone in the theatre? If you developed a virus and didn't distribute it would that be a crime? If you give it to one person is it a crime? How about if you give it to millions? How many people must know a fact, posses source code or executable. In short, does freedom of speech rest on how many people are aware of your expression? My position is that if you answer in the affermative then you are basicaly stating there is no freedom of speech. It should be perfectly permissible to shout 'fire' in a theatre filled to the brim. If anyone takes you seriously and is harmed then you should be liable for the damage. Your right to shout 'fire' is not relevant. If you accept the premise then what you are buying into is preemptive justice, in short judging somebody guilty by what they might do, not what they have done. If this is permitted then we have a serious problem in that anyperson is therefore guilty of whatever crime is desired.