To further explain the "fire" point above: What isn't obvious is that, while obviously immoral, the fire example is actually not a good way to test if something should be free speech protected.
Quoting from the article: "The "shouting fire" standard seems to require that the to-be-censored speech be (1) false, (2) said under circumstances in which there is no opportunity for reasoned reflection or debate, and (3) the cause of actual harm by those who hear it."
The problem is people who dislike free speech can argue that yelling "false" things shouldn't be protected. This is leads to selective enforcement.
The more narrowed definition was added in Brandenburg v Ohio tto something is protected under free speech unless it has a likelihood of inciting "Imminent lawless action".
Quoting from the article: "The "shouting fire" standard seems to require that the to-be-censored speech be (1) false, (2) said under circumstances in which there is no opportunity for reasoned reflection or debate, and (3) the cause of actual harm by those who hear it."
The problem is people who dislike free speech can argue that yelling "false" things shouldn't be protected. This is leads to selective enforcement.
The more narrowed definition was added in Brandenburg v Ohio tto something is protected under free speech unless it has a likelihood of inciting "Imminent lawless action".