I didn't understand that post when it was written and I don't understand your comment now.

How is this different from saying "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is not a quote you should use if you are opposed to the government granting special benefits and privileges to blacks in preference to whites, because that was an idea that Martin Luther King supported?

Can an idea have any value independently of the cause someone once used it to support?

People use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what that means. If Trump was planning a war on Iran, you would have no right to speak out against it because you'd be shouting "fire in a crowded theater"

I also can't make sense of the article. The 1A clearly doesn't protect you from prosecution if you deliberately cause a disturbance by shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. It's an uncontroversial example illustrating that the 1A has limits. The fact that this uncontroversial example was used in support of some controversial arguments ~100 years ago is neither here nor there.

> People use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what that means.

I'm thinking, but all I can see is an apparently sincere effort to make the argument that Hitler Ate Sugar ( https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar ).

So tell me: what does that mean?