[initplus]

Are you aware that this analogy originated in a supreme court case where it was used to support restricting the speech of anti-war protestors during WW1?

“Fire in a theatre” is a great example of using a reasonable sounding analogy to support behaviour (prosecuting anti-war campaigners) that today we judge very poorly.

[oarabbus_]

Are threats of violence and false, defamatory statements protected speech or not? The point is that "free speech" doesn't mean "100% of speech is protected".

Not to mention even in light of the historical context, one should strongly support the free speech rights of anti-war protestors, but inciting panic in a crowded space ('fire' in a crowded theater) isn't the correct way to go about it.

[initplus]

The anti-war protestors were not inciting panic in public places. They were simply distributing flyers representing their anti-war and anti-draft views. The analogy was used to equate this reasonable and legitimate political speech with inciting panic in a crowded space.

I think it stands as a good example of how restrictions on certain kinds of speech that look very reasonable in a moment of crisis can in turn be judged very poorly in the long term.

I don't personally know where I stand on the free speech issue, I just want people to stop using this stupid "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy.