> While from the earliest days some forms of speech have been assumed to be subject to potential restrictions (i.e. the risk of immediate danger by shouting “fi

> While from the earliest days some forms of speech have been assumed to be subject to potential restrictions (i.e. the risk of immediate danger by shouting “fire in a crowded movie house”) the remaining expression of political ideas went unregulated, no matter how hateful. This led to “expressions” such as burning crosses, flags, or effigies, often accompanied by hateful written materials. All in all, it was a lot of work to express a lot of hate. Still the Supreme Court upheld the right to do so, so long as the speech did not violate other laws such as fire codes, arson, or safety regulations. Utterly false. The "fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from a (later overturned) Supreme Court decision that banned opposing the draft. I guess the authors point would be somewhat diminished if he had to include anti-war protests as things that tend to be banned when speech gets moderated, not just the catch-all 'hate'.