Great - you are really fixating on my outdated understanding of that particular statement, in lieu of actually addressing the substance of the argument which is

Great - you are really fixating on my outdated understanding of that particular statement, in lieu of actually addressing the substance of the argument which is that some speech is not legal. Specifically this kind of speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action The decision in this case was eventually narrowed to just any speech that incites immediate lawbreaking - which the 'fire statement' did not do. In which case what we're taking about here still applies because we are examining a case where it was suspected by some well-placed individuals that individuals were inciting each other to imminent lawless action. Whether they actually did or not is clearly disputed, but let's at least focus on the substance of this issue instead of going after a red herring.