"Shouting fire in a a crowded theater" is the most consistently overused, misunderstood, and tiresome arguments levied by censorship apologists against the idea

"Shouting fire in a a crowded theater" is the most consistently overused, misunderstood, and tiresome arguments levied by censorship apologists against the ideals of free speech. It's also completely incorrect, as the actual act of shouting the word fire in a crowded theater is most assuredly protected under the first amendment. A casual reading of literature makes this obvious[1]. Thankfully the use of this argument is generally the loudest signal that can be generated by those who haven't spend much time dealing with the subject in any depth, so it's always a useful tool to gauge how much energy to spend engaging with someone on the topic. In any case, when activists refer to Free Speech, we are generally referring to the greater principle of Freedom of Speech[2], which has a much broader philosophical and societal scope than the narrow definition of legally protected speech under the first amendment of the US constitution. Apostles for the movement like myself are in favor of greatly expanding the scope of Free Speech protections in the United States and the world at large, and are more generally committed to engineering a deeper appreciation for the broader concept of Freedom of Speech and the enormous influence it bears on our trajectory towards a free society. 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... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech