> Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case. That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged

> Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case. That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged on "dangerous and false" and was reconsidered in Brandenburg v Ohio[1] and the standard was raised to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Effectively: - If the "dangerous" speech is false or likely to "incite imminent lawless action", you have trouble. - If the "dangerous" speech is debatable as true or not OR debatable on if it would "incite imminent lawless action", then it's way less clear. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio