> > "fire!" (in a crowded room) = not okay.

> I really wish people could find a different expression to convey what they mean by this, because what they/you mean by this is probably worlds apart from what this phrase actually meant when it was formulated.

A bit yeah, right on Wikipedia [0]:

> The paraphrasing differs from Holmes's original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word "crowded" to describe the theatre. The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Additionally:

> The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

This suggests a better phrase to use: "inciting imminent lawless action"

Maybe that's not as dramatic as "yelling fire in a crowded theater", but I think that's actually a good thing.

Isn't it understood that the person yelling "fire!" is by assumption doing it falsely? The "[falsely] yelling fire in a croweded theatre" is immediately relatable by everyone and conveys the idea. What is the problem?

The problem is it conveys the wrong idea. Falsity of expression is no grounds for persecution. Moreover, the word "fire" has been yelled many, many times in many, many crowded theaters (during films, plays, concerts, etc.) without anything bad happening. The problem is that it tried to describe a very narrow situation (falsely causing panic which leads to people being hurt by making them believe there's imminent danger) by describing a much wider situation, and then making conclusions from this as if the wider situation was the narrower situation.

That is exactly what happened when this phrase was first used (it was used when a person was prosecuted for speaking against the war under the guise that he's "hurting the war effort" - you can see how this trick works) - and it has been used many times after to validate persecution of speech that hurt nobody but that you could construe a byzantine logical way it could in theory hurt somebody is you really really want to believe it. And that's exactly the problem.

Because the 'false' in "falsely yelling fire" is subjective and has its origins in the suppression of legitimate political speech.