[servo1969]

That's the problem with the 'Shouting fire' analogy. When people use that argument what they are saying, in effect, is that Muslims are no different than fire or any other force of nature. The person making such a statement is equating Muslims with the elements. As if to say it would be wrong to even expect Muslims to not kill people.

[Nifster]

I have an ABSOLUTE right to tell the truth about the ROP...if those thugs and hooligans don’t like it maybe we can create a glass factory for them to work in

[OneWingedShark]

That's the problem with the 'Shouting fire' analogy. When people use that argument what they are saying, in effect, is that Muslims are no different than fire or any other force of nature.

Actually that's only a small problem with the "shouting fire" analogy; the bigger problem is that the whole argument stems from a case involving anti-war publications in WWI, which posited that the war was wrong and encouraged non-violent petition/reform and noncompliance w/ the draft. It was precisely this sort of political speech that the 1st Amendment was created to protect, and the reason that President John Adams get's such a bad rap for the Alien and Sedition Acts. (To further insult a sense of justice, the justification for entering WWI [the sinking of a British boat, killing nearly 130 Americans... and war-supplies to GB] could very well have been the equivalent of Fast & Furious.)

The correct ruling in such a hypothetical false shouting of fire is obvious: the shouter should be held civilly liable for injury costs, and criminally liable [murder/manslaughter] for any deaths resulting from his action. That the supreme court decision relies so heavily on the "shouting fire" 'exception' is proof that the USSC was trying to justify the sedition-laws that the publisher was charged with violating.