You know, simply put, there needs to be an adverse consequence for politicians who

[CaptainTruth]

52. No, not "fire in a crowded theater" again. That's a myth.

It basically refers to a 1919 case that was partially overturned in 1969 (the famous Brandenburg v Ohio).

If you follow @BadLegalTakes on Twitter you'll see that one regularly appearing as a bad legal take, sometimes followed by a 1st Amendment attorney or law professor posting a gif of a guy banging his head on a table.

From Wikipedia:

The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

You can even buy the T-shirt!



https://techdirt.creator-spring.com/listing/pro-tip?

Thank you for attending my TED talk.