There are limits to free speech which have been long established. The clear and present danger doctrine describes limits to free speech, in that you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. When/if the amplification possible with social media is connected with mob violence, there could be prosecution. I don't think court systems and law enforcement are sophisticated enough yet, though.

The most famous use of the ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater analogy was 1919’s Schenck v. United States, where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that protesting the draft by passing out pamphlets exemplified a clear and present danger worthy of regulation.

A handful of exceptions do exist to the First Amendment, but free speech absolutists tend to be skeptical of the comparison you make in your post, because historically there have been some serious legal wrongs performed in the name of said crowded theater.

You may find the "Make No Law" first amendment podcast interesting. It's created by Popehat (Ken White), a well known first amendment lawyer. In his podcast he talks about the history of "fire in a crowded theatre", along with many other first amendment topics. It provides a really interesting view into how the courts have applied the first amendment over the years.

Just a note: "Shouting Fire in a crowded theater" is protected, since Brandenberg in 1969. The standard is that you can't incite imminent lawless action, and people trying to escape from a fire isn't "lawless".

You mean falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre - an exceedingly important distinction which is core to much discussion about free speech (should offensive speech be allowed if it is stating facts etc.)

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was comparing the amplification of social media with the concept of yelling in a theater.

You mean falsely, otherwise your 'clear and present danger' part doesn't make sense - the entire point historically with your example is that it is perfectly acceptable to yell in the theatre if there is clear and present danger. Reducing it to simply 'yelling in a theatre' means you're evaluating it just on.. yelling alone? What? Are you saying all 'social media amplification' is the same?

The danger in 'clear and present danger' of yelling in the crowded theater is specifically and intentionally causing panic where people are likely to get hurt. As others have mentioned, though, it's complicated. The original poster was suggesting we need new laws targeting the amplification of social media, which could limit false and damaging speech. My suggestion is that existing speech, slander, and libel laws apply. The 'amplification' of social media gives individual voices more reach and clout, similar to yelling. Social etiquette, law enforcement, and the judicial system have yet to adapt.

Is it knowingly falsely yell fire? Or just falsely yell fire?

In practice SESTA/FOSTA are serious restrictions on free speech, but nobody on the right cares about that.

Libertarians do. Though with Kamala Harris it's gonna be even worse

Then who will have the power to decide what free speech needs to be suppressed? Let's give it a thought at the options available:

A) Government. Some years liberals will supress conservatives, when the power is switch conservatives will supress back. The whole concept of free speech was specifically designed to not have the government dictate what you can say or not say.

B) The press. Which one, CNN or Fox News? The trust on the media is an all-time low and they clearly have earned that reputation.

C) The judicial system? Again, most of them are appointed by the government.

D) Tech lords. I really hope no one is advocating for this.

I am not American, I wish to live in a country where I can criticize anyone, even the President, without fear of getting arrested for a bogus claim of defimation. Is sad to see that most Americans don't value their own freedoms.