This analogy was created in an attempt to outlaw people speaking against the draft. My understanding is that it was overturned and is no longer considered a relevant example on the test of free speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
To put it another way, Brandenburg v. Ohio didn’t find that it actually is ok to shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. Rather, it found that a particular instance of speech wasn’t analogous to that example.
I get your point, it's just a bad example given the historical baggage.
Since "it" is the draft stuff, not shouting fire, it's only mildly sometimes relevant.
And why would the approaches to them be different if, presumably, both represent the people?
No one is ever free of consequences with respect to free speech. I can march around a college town with a tiki torch yelling racist bullshit, and if I make the news and get fired, that's just how it goes. Don't say anything on twitter you wouldn't otherwise say in public to strangers.
Should be persecuted BY THE GOVERNMENT. At no point has any nation held that all people should be able to say whatever they want at any time with zero repercussions from anywhere. You can yell in a crowded theater, and they can kick you out. If you yell "fire" and cause a panic, you're arrested for the panic, not the fact you spoke, but for the fact you put people in potential danger. But if you only yell some racial slur, for example, no one will arrest you for the slur, but you can be asked to leave the theater and never return because that's private property.
Freedom of speech is not and has never been freedom from consequences.