[garg]

It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example.

Edit:

People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.

[thaumasiotes]

Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct:

> The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre.

> This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.

> Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution.

This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)

[Dracophoenix]

And "speech brigaded with action" would still have to pass the muster of being "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". One would have to prove a criminal element (almost always a mens rea) in addition to such speech rather than holding the presumption that the words themselves carry a distinguishing factor among other things. You're right to say it's prosecutable (although technically anything is prosecutable), however what you appear to allude to (and I could be wrong in assuming that of your claim) is that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is prima facie unprotected speech. If so, then that hasn't been true since the Brandenburg test was instituted.