I mean, the court seems to agree with this statement but it makes absolutely no sense to me. The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt.
This seems like the same kind of thing but much, much more harmful.
This commonly brought up example is a complete garbage. It was first brought into American jurisprudence during WWI
In fact, this case illustrates exactly why we ought not to criminalize speech. The phrase first entered American jurisprudence in Eugene v Debs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs), in which the government tried to prosecute an anti-war protester. Do you think the anti-war guy was popular in his time? Do you understand now why the government has no business policing speech?
In the United States, short of direct threats, you can always say whatever you want. It's a fundamental human right, and frankly, no government has a moral right to take that away. This idea is foundational to American democracy. FFS, civil rights group will defend your right to proclaim 'hate speech' in
This isn't the case. There are many exceptions to the 1st Amendment's protection of speech, beyond just true threats.
This is legal [0], and is a misunderstanding. The case where this came up was overturned as telling fire falsely is crime depending on the circumstances. And yelling fire truthfully is never a crime.
If there’s a fire in a crowded theater, you definitely want people yelling fire. And trying to limit them will lead to more deaths, not less.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
That people honestly think this is a bad thing is depressing. The government simply cannot be trusted in the wider picture to make these decisions about good vs bad speech.