I am not a lawyer, but it seems that intentionally and falsely shouting fire to cause panic would not have any kind of blanket 1A protection. From https://www.w

I am not a lawyer, but it seems that intentionally and falsely shouting fire to cause panic would not have any kind of blanket 1A protection. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/11/shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...: > And in fact the line from Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States is “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” That “falsely” is what’s doing the work, both in Justice Holmes’s hypothetical, and in how such a false shout would be treated by First Amendment law today. Knowingly false statements of fact are often constitutionally unprotected — consider, for instance, libel, fraud, perjury, and false light invasion of privacy. That would presumably apply to knowing falsehoods that cause a panic. Also see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1038. That said, this doesn't change your broader point that it seems that most people (myself included) are not very clear on 1A exceptions.