brownra04
Basically, the analogy of shouting "fire" in a theater was meant to illustrate the "clear and present danger" doctrine - if an act of speech could lead to clear and present danger which there were laws against, then the speech was not protected. What's false about this analogy is that the "clear and present danger" standard isn't the standard that speech is measured against today. Instead, speech is restricted according to the "imminent lawless action" doctrine, by which speech that could lead directly to people breaking the law is not protected. This was decided in Brandenburg v. Ohio[2], and the central tenet of the ruling is:
"Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."
Thus, standing on a street corner and praising the merits of rioting and damaging property might be protected speech if it was very unlikely for anyone to take those actions, but if you did it during a restless protest march the protections of free speech may not apply.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... [2]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_conse...
I agree that it's pretty obvious you're being retargeted when ads for camping supplies start showing up three days after you search for them on Amazon. But the practice of "personalization" of results and ads is far larger and deeper, to a degree that most people never seem to think about.