1: Regardless of its original context, the analogy does seem reasonable to me. "Shouting fire," assuming there is no fire, is disinformation. "A crowded theater" represents a scenario in which disinformation presents a clear and present threat to others.
2: Better late than never. ICUs are reaching capacity again, especially in areas with low vaccination rates. There is a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, but we are still in the tunnel.
Nearly 100 years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voting to uphold the Espionage Act conviction of a man who wrote and circulated anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, said “[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
That flourish — now usually shortened to “shout fire in a crowded theater” — is the media’s go-to trope to support the proposition that some speech is illegal. But it’s empty rhetoric. I previously explained at length how Holmes said it in the context of the Supreme Court’s strong wartime pro-censorship push and subsequently retreated from it. That history illustrates its insidious nature. Holmes cynically used the phrase as a rhetorical device to justify jailing people for anti-war advocacy, an activity that is now (and was soon thereafter) unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.
In practice I don’t think banning NoNewNormal now matters much. I prefer unbanned because I don’t like censorship, but this isn’t a slippery slope problem, Reddit has long been free falling into the latrine pit. I’ve had to go offsite with my old Reddit community. Efforts can be made, but I think the entire process here is useless.
As to your first point, I don't disagree. The analogy has been used frequently in bad faith. That is not what I am doing here, and I think Homles' statement, regardless of his intent, is still fundamentally correct. We can discuss what responses to take freely, but uncomfortable facts are facts. I don't think allowing communities explicitly dedicated to denial of those facts brings us anything of value.
The Supreme Court case in which this saying originated was one where someone advocated protesting the draft. He spoke truths, and gave advice and opinions. He did not spread disinformation.
Regarding your second statement, deplatforming works to an extent. People do not change their minds, but they do lose influence over the larger conversation.
2: Better late than never. ICUs are reaching capacity again, especially in areas with low vaccination rates. There is a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, but we are still in the tunnel.
Edit: de-amped versions of the above links
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-s...