I feel like you're having a kind of knee-jerk reaction to the fire example - your criticism makes sense when it is being used to justify some censorship (becaus

I feel like you're having a kind of knee-jerk reaction to the fire example - your criticism makes sense when it is being used to justify some censorship (because legal != moral), but the GP is asking why this case isn't covered by the federal concept of free speech, literally speaking, for which the fire quote is a totally valid example of speech having negative effects that outweigh the value of that specific example of speech (regardless of whether the legal origin of the example is apocryphal, since overturned, etc). I.e. the GP didn't ask "how is this not a violation of the spirit of free speech", they asked, "why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech" (so it's not really "a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship" in this case).