That stems from the 1919 Schenk case[0] which hinged on "dangerous and false" and was reconsidered in Brandenburg v Ohio[1] and the standard was raised to "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
Effectively:
- If the "dangerous" speech is false or likely to "incite imminent lawless action", you have trouble.
- If the "dangerous" speech is debatable as true or not OR debatable on if it would "incite imminent lawless action", then it's way less clear.
It will be very hard for anyone to prove that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater comprises a "debate on public issue".
And, here's the big W on it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
"speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true."
Big Tech San Francisco censored the lab leak hypothesis, now accepted as credible.
During the lockdowns, politicians freely held dinners and mingled, mask-free with their friends. For those less equal than others, you were fined or arrested.
Invading in the Capitol was "peaceful protest" in 2018 when Democrats did it, but "insurrection" in 2021, because Republicans did it.
The New York Times now ranks below Breitbart in terms of credibility.
Same goes for universities. You know why people don't "trust the science"? Because when you mix politics and science, you get politics, not science.
"Dangerous and false" now just means "isn't approved by CNN today, but might be tomorrow if convenient".
Slander, meanwhile, is by definition false (as determined by a court). If the court finds that it isn't false, then it wasn't slander. Thus it isn't protected by law, and the state can prosecute you over it.
2021 had folks die/get murdered.
I can see how you are confused.
The one person who died violently was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot.
(And before you mention him, Officer Sicknick did not die from being hit by a fire extinguisher because that never happened (<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brian-sicknick-fire-exting...>). He died of a stroke which the autopsy found no connection with the riot (<https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/19/brian-sickn...>).)
Being a devil's advocate, that's been tried multiple time by faulty fire alarms.
In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court stated that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."
Which is a quite generous definition which yet excludes the infamous "fire in the crowded theater" case.