[bpfrh]

>...where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action...

This seems to say there is a limit to free speech

>The act of shouting "fire" when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise. However, if it causes a stampede and someone is killed as a result, then the act could amount to a crime, such as involuntary manslaughter, assuming the other elements of that crime are made out.

Your own link says that if you yell fire in a crowded space and people die you can be held liable.

[wgd]

Ironically the case in question is a perfect example of how any provision for "reasonable" restriction of speech will be abused, since the original precedent we're referring to applied this "reasonable" standard to...speaking out against the draft.

But I'm sure it's fine, there's no way someone could rationalize speech they don't like as "likely to incite imminent lawless action"

[eesmith]

Yes, and ...? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s comment from the despicable case Schenck v. United States, while pithy enough for you to repeat it over a century later, has not been valid since 1969.

Remember, this is the case which determined it was lawful to jail war dissenters who were handing out "flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction."

Please remember to use an example more in line with Brandenburg v. Ohio: "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic".

> Your own link says that if you yell fire in a crowded space and people die you can be held liable.

(This is an example of how hard it is to dot all the i's when talking about this phrase. It needs a "falsely" as the theater may actually be on fire.)

[bpfrh]

Yes, if your comment is strictly read, you are right that your are allowed to scream fire in a crowded space

I think that the "you are not allowed to scream fire" argument kinda implies that there is not a fire and it creates a panic which leads to injuries

I read the wikipedia article about brandenburg, but I don't quite understand how it changes the part about screaming fire in a crowded room.

Is it that it would fall under causing a riot(and therefore be against the law/government)?

Or does it just remove any earlier restrictions if any?

Or where there never any restrictions and it was always just the outcome that was punished?

Because most of the article and opinions talk about speech against law and government.