> The yelling "fire" thing is a WWI era anachronism that wouldn't hold today.
Eh? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is most definitely still a thing you could be prosecuted for, especially if someone died/was seriously injured in the resultant stampede.
> But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.
> First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."
> The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.
> The yelling "fire" thing is a WWI era anachronism that wouldn't hold today.
Really? Go try it and report on the results.
Feel free to take it literally, or think of a similar action that could cause a stampede and try that.
(No, I won't pay your defense, fines, or judgements, and I don't think anyone else will either. This is because the very idea that the concept no longer applies is stupid, and that statement should be abandoned.)
As for libel Google isn't the party that wrote that statement so they aren't liable for libel.
The yelling "fire" thing is a WWI era anachronism that wouldn't hold today.
As for incitement, intent must be proven.
Free speech is very well protected in the US.