On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:32:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 14:00:12 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

The point is they did not rank the rights, they all have the same
importance, no matter what the collateral damage might be.
In the 70s the court even gutted the principle of crying fire in a
crowded theater. Even the most devisive and violence inciting speech
is protected. I suppose you still think the 1st amendment is
important.

Last time I checked, yelling fire in a crowded theater is still illegal and nothing changed that. I'd like to see some people bring some hate crime cases to the SC, because there are freedom of speech issues with many of those laws. I'd say if anything, free speech is more restricted today than it was 50 or 100 years ago.

Perhaps you should do a little research on the Oliver Wendall Holmes
decision of 1919 where that came from and then look at what became
protected speech in the 70s.
Hint: OWH considered protesting the draft in time of war "a clear and
present danger" and used the analogy of the "fire in a theater"
example.
As we all know that became protected speech in the 70s.
Essentially SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) was overturned and
Oliver's flowery rhetoric (never actually in the law) went with it.

Total BS. Protesting the draft does not present a real and immediate threat to the public. Falsely yelling fire in a theater does.




That was reinforced when the SCOTUS supported the nazi's right to
march in Skokie around the same time.

Again, apples and oranges.



You can be mad at the Warren and Burger courts but that does not make
the decisions moot.

No, you just need to understand that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected speech, for obvious reasons. If you feel otherwise, show us the actual decisions.