The "[falsely] shouting fire in a theater" argument places emphasis on the wrong part of the problem with free speech maximalism. Most people don't realize "fa

The "[falsely] shouting fire in a theater" argument places emphasis on the wrong part of the problem with free speech maximalism. Most people don't realize "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" was first used to justify locking up peaceful anti-war demonstrators under the flimsy justification that it slowed down the war effort. That's the first clue that it's a bad argument. Also, Oliver Wendell Holmes was later convinced this was a bad argument[0]. You, and most others, also commonly leave out "falsely" part of Holmes's argument, though it's still implied if not present. (Nobody is arguing that alerting people to the presence of a real fire would be the wrong thing to do. Delaying an evacuation until the fire is violently apparent is more likely to cause a panicked evacuation vs. shouting, no matter how forcefully one can shout. Also, analogies are like cars... they only go so far.) The (stated or implied) falsely part is the crux of the problem. There are countless cases in history where the majority consensus was very wrong, and stopping someone from speaking because it's considered both wrong and dangerous is bad policy. It's just too easy to find something dangerous in any situation to justify silencing. It's much better to condemn all calls for (non-state[1]) violence, regardless of the truth or falsity of their arguments. It's much better to set crystal clear criteria for what constitutes too dangerous speech, regardless of its truth. Incitements to (non-state[2]) violence is at least a lowest-common denominator. Maybe it's not great, but other lines get murky very quickly, and people quickly disagree over the level of danger. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... [1] Or, if you're a strict pacifist, simply all calls to violence [2] Sorry strict pacifists, it's just not practical for the government to ban calls for war or calls for the police to use the state's monopoly on violence to protect people in physical harm.