The link says:
> People tend to cite the "fire in a crowded theater" quote for two reasons, both bolstered by Holmes' fame. First, they trot out the Holmes quote for the proposition that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. But this is not in dispute.
Which seems to be the reason the quote was used and backs it up? So what's the problem?
Also, I share your sense of feeling like it would have been more constructive to summarize whatever the key argument is supposed to be and how it connects in this thread.
"Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". The claim that some speech is not protected is not the same as the claim that because of that some other particular speech is not protected. There has to be a fundamental similarity between two sets of circumstances such that they can both be prevented for the same reason. "Not all speech is protected, that is not in dispute, but the speech you're claiming isn't protected actually is" would be the problem.
"This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. "
To use the "fire" example to make the point that there must be a line somewhere sounds fine to me.
> "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed".
Who said that? Obviously you can't use the "fire" example to prove anything you want.