>...but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech.

Well, the article discusses the origin of the idea that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal. It also points out that Brandenburg v. Ohio is the actual relevant decision.

For more context on the Brandenberg decision:

>...Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.

>...Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

>With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

>So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

The death of a human being can certainly be regarded as unlawful. See Michelle Carter's conviction for encouraging Conrad Roy to commit suicide [1] despite the fact that Massachusetts has no law against suicide itself.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy

The ruling standard is Brandenburg v. Ohio, which draws the line at incitement to "imminent lawless action." Which is to say, you have to be rallying people to start a riot right now. Doing something that is merely provocative, such as marching a neo-Nazi parade through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors, is protected First Amendment speech.

Literally shouting fire in a crowded theater in an attempt to cause a panic and perhaps kill people, would not be protected speech, but pretty much anything less would be protected speech.

No contest here! The only thing my reply addresses is the parent's assertion that the specific example of shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected speech.