> A nuanced view of the actual debate is that one side believes the second amendment is absolute and the other believes that it allows for some restrictions sim

> A nuanced view of the actual debate is that one side believes the second amendment is absolute and the other believes that it allows for some restrictions similar to the free speech / "fire in a theater" situation. You presume that there is agreement among the first group that the First Amendment is not just as absolute as the Second. BTW, that "falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" bit was actually a threadbare excuse to punish people for protesting the draft, something many would consider protected political speech. The hypothetical scenario is not very well reasoned, either, even ignoring the context. If anyone is hurt during the evacuation the fault lies with those who panicked and trampled them in their haste to escape, not the person who claimed there was a fire, regardless of whether that report was true or false. The most they could reasonably be held responsible for is the interruption of the show for an orderly evacuation.