> c.f. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema In the US this example derives from Justice Holmes dicta in Schenck v. US: "The most stringent protection of free s

> c.f. shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema In the US this example derives from Justice Holmes dicta in Schenck v. US: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." The background of this case is that Charles Schenck and others were distributing leaflets urging the resistance to the military draft during WW1. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction. This case was later overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio which set a new standard, imminent lawless action, as a limit on free speech. So strictly speaking what you said is protected. You can absolutely have a play where a character shouts "fire" during the course of the script with a full theater watching. If someone knowingly shouted "fire" with the intent of causing a panic then that can venture into unprotected speech. Hate speech, in the US, is not a thing that exists in the legal landscape. This has been tested in the courts numerous times, e.g. Snyder v. Phelps, Virginia v. Black, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, etc. It's important to note that in the US hate crime laws are a thing and while speech is quite nearly unlimited, actions are not. The issue I see with those advocating for hate speech laws is that their time horizon for its use is too short. All governments throughout history have gone through phases from formation to internal civil strife to revolutions and ultimately the death of the government itself. While hate speech laws can limit hateful rhetoric in the short term - from the perspective of supporters - the long term application of these laws can take on a completely different goal as societies evolve over time. I would rather suffer hateful rhetoric with some limits at the extremes - imminent lawless action - than entrust the government with such a power over long time spans.