[mijkal]

Free speech, in the US context, usually relates to the 1st Amendment, which precludes _govt_ censorship.

You can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater; if there is indeed a fire, it's fine — you're trying to help alert people to a dangerous situation. If there is not, and you cause a panic that results in injury to others, you could (should imo) be liable.

The US Supreme Court has a litmus test around when the line is crossed. Logically, there must be a balance to ensure one's rights do not infringe on another's, and when there is conflict, how to resolve it. In the case of party A threatening violence on party B, the line is if there is an imminent threat ('fighting words' — inciting an immediate attack), A is in the wrong. Otherwise, no 1A issue. It's much more difficult to prove in the case of stochastic speech targeting a person or group (eg Said before an audience: '$target is bad. Would be a shame if something happened to $target.' Implying someone in earshot should take care of it.).

I also want to highlight that free speech doesn't mean free of consequence — it only limits govt censorship. You can say what you want, but you may: incur financial loses (eg job or contract losses, boycotts), be ridiculed or shamed (ie become a pariah), be denied access to private properties / venues / events / forums (including web sites such as Twitter or Facebook), etc.

https://xkcd.com/1357/