I'm always amused to see people use the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. coined the phrase in Schenck v. United States.[1] In that case, he sent a man to prison for the crime of leafleting against the draft in World War I.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#The_C...

Minor nitpick: he didn’t send Schenck to prison. He was already in prison. The Supreme Court just kept him there.

The court case that gave us the "fire in a crowded theater" example was partially overturned by brandenburg vs ohio. It's not entirely clear which direction the court would come down right now.

Your first example is also impacted by this. General advocacy of violence was upheld as constitutionally protected speech, it's very unlikely that hate speech could ever meet the brandenburg test.

That's not to say that your point about one person's right to work vs another person's right to live is wrong. In fact, I think the court would likely agree with you on that matter. I just think your first couple of examples are flawed.