His argument hinges on the notion that the common public perception that shouting fire in a public theater is not protected speech is somehow false. But the art

His argument hinges on the notion that the common public perception that shouting fire in a public theater is not protected speech is somehow false. But the article he references directly contradicts his assertion. March 3, 1919, <Supreme Court> Justice Holmes wrote: ‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.’ That seems pretty clear to me. Free speech does NOT include the ability to create a clear and present danger to public safety. (The clear and present danger language also exists in the same Supreme Court ruling) Not that I think Elon would be a good steward of public speech since he has the habit of using twitter to illegally manipulate the stock market and defame hero rescuers. Just pointing out that the argument presented is a bit shaky. https://web.archive.org/web/20220324231029/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-fire-crowded-theater-speech-regulation/621151/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220324231029/https://www.theat...