One of the favorite rhetorical tricks on the Left is invoking the old line that you “can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” whenever someone raises concerns they would rather not address. The implication is always the same: some speech is simply too dangerous to be tolerated. Yet it is remarkable how quickly that principle disappears when it comes to activists and politicians spreading narratives that inflame public passions while bearing only a passing resemblance to reality.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Reasonable people can disagree about immigration policy, policing, criminal justice, or almost any other public issue. What crosses the line is deliberately creating a false mental picture of events in order to provoke outrage. Too many professional “community activists,” sympathetic politicians, and media personalities have built careers doing exactly that. They describe routine law enforcement operations as military occupations. They portray every arrest as persecution, every use of force as brutality, and every attempt to enforce immigration law as an assault on innocent families. Their words encourage people to believe they are witnessing tyranny rather than the execution of laws passed by elected representatives.

That manufactured perception has real consequences.

Consider the controversy surrounding ICE enforcement. The images splashed across television and social media often suggest that federal agents are suddenly descending on unsuspecting communities for no reason other than political theater. The reality is considerably less dramatic. Long before the rise of sanctuary cities and states, immigration enforcement occurred every day under both Republican and Democratic administrations, including Barack Obama’s. Most Americans never noticed because federal agents coordinated with state and local law enforcement. Individuals who had already entered the criminal justice system could be transferred to federal custody with minimal risk, minimal confrontation, and minimal publicity.

Sanctuary policies changed that equation. When local governments refuse to cooperate with federal authorities, those authorities are forced to locate and apprehend individuals in neighborhoods, workplaces, or other public locations where uncertainty and risk are naturally much higher. The spectacle many activists now condemn is, in many cases, the predictable consequence of the very policies they champion. They helped create the circumstances that require more visible enforcement, then point to that visibility as proof that enforcement itself is abusive.

Meanwhile, activists often encourage resistance by portraying federal agents as illegitimate actors. People are told they are victims of oppression rather than subjects of lawful warrants or removal orders. Panic replaces judgment. Crowds gather. Emotions overwhelm reason. Every additional moment of hesitation increases the danger for everyone involved, including innocent bystanders.

History demonstrates that public confidence in law enforcement is a precious commodity. Once it is systematically undermined, restoring it becomes extraordinarily difficult.

I believe the atmosphere surrounding policing after the death of George Floyd illustrates that danger. Regardless of one’s opinion about individual cases, years of one-sided coverage and activist messaging convinced millions of Americans that police misconduct was not the exception but the defining characteristic of American law enforcement. That perception affected officer morale, recruiting, proactive policing, and ultimately public safety in many communities. Whether every conclusion drawn from that period was justified is almost beside the point.

Narratives shape behavior, and some induced behaviors cost people their livelihoods and lives.

The same dynamic has been unfolding around immigration enforcement for a while. When activists insist every detention is a kidnapping, every deportation is fascism, and every ICE officer is a villain, they increase the likelihood that frightened individuals will resist lawful apprehension. That resistance raises the risk of injury or death for suspects, officers, and innocent people caught nearby.

Speech is powerful precisely because it influences action. Those who invoke the crowded theater analogy should remember that it cuts both ways. If we truly believe reckless rhetoric can endanger lives, then we ought to be just as concerned about narratives that deliberately manufacture panic, demonize lawful institutions, and encourage confrontation with law enforcement.

Our Republic is doomed if every legal disagreement is dishonestly recast as an existential struggle against evil. The Rule of Law depends not only on statutes and courts, but also on a citizenry willing to distinguish between political disagreement and manufactured hysteria. When activists intentionally blur that distinction for ideological gain, they are not merely expressing an opinion. They are helping create the very tragedies they later condemn.