This person would be able to provide evidence as to why they thought there was a fire, show why their belief is genuine and not a lie.
This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason.
Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.
No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.
Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.
Regardless, incitement remains an exception to free speech the world over to some degree. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that incitement to discrimination is prohibited, for example [0].
My point stands, people of most societies globally believe certain speech should not be protected.
[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal.
A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air.
So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is.
EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.