It doesn't ring true. It's false, thats it. You are saying that even if you used an overturned century old case to justify censorship, you are still right? Why

It doesn't ring true. It's false, thats it. You are saying that even if you used an overturned century old case to justify censorship, you are still right? Why exactly? You might want it to be true but using it as a foot in the door to justify even more slippery slope restrictions just does not work very well when it's not been relevant for 50 years now. And we lived all that time without the sky falling over, or society collapsing into more intolerance than 100 years ago. So much so that a lot of people still think that it just ought to be illegal. Doesn't that prove that we actually don't have to restrict speech or "intolerance" ? Or do you think that we are worse off in that regard that back when shouting fire in a theater was a reasonable restriction on free speech?