The "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from a court case that allowed the government to imprison somebody for advocating against the draft, and it's been

The "fire in a crowded theater" example comes from a court case that allowed the government to imprison somebody for advocating against the draft, and it's been used to defend government overreach ever since[1]. What's interesting is how the same argument for allowing more discrimination would be laughed off the stage as completely meritless and bigoted. But the situation is exactly the same! Organizations are allowed to discriminate against protected classes when it's a bona fide occupational qualification or the organization is a private club, so surely there's long precedent for allowing discrimination in specified circumstances? Somehow almost everyone sees how this argument is totaly facile in the context of discrimination, yet it gets trotted out over and over when suggesting further restrictions on freedom of speech. [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...