Yes, You Can Yell 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito repeated the common myth that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" is unprotected speech.

Though it is a popular misconception, it's perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. However, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito hasn't seemed to have gotten the message.
Despite sitting on the highest court in the land, directly deciding what is—and isn't—protected by the First Amendment, Alito delivered repeated on Tuesday a common constitutional myth. Whether the remark reveals a deep-seated misconception about First Amendment jurisprudence or was simply a momentary slip-up is unclear.
On Tuesday evening, Justice Alito, delivered remarks at The Heritage Foundation, as part of the think tank's Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture. During the lecture, Alito spoke on a wide swath of issues—ranging from his early legal career to substantive due process. He also expounded at length on the state of discourse and free speech on college campuses, particularly law schools.
"Based on what I have read and what has been told to me by students, it's pretty abysmal, and it's disgraceful, and it's really dangerous for our future as a united democratic country," Alito said. "We depend on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is essential."
Alito emphasized the particular role that law schools have in fostering "rational debate" and holding firm to the principle of free speech, saying that some schools were "not carrying out their responsibility."
However, Alito's trouble began when he was asked where he would "draw the line between protected and unprotected speech." Alito emphasized the importance of protecting "any speech involving public issues, involving politics, government, history, economics, law, science, religion, philosophy, the arts," but he noted that the First Amendment doesn't protect all speech, including "extortion and threats," defamation, and "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater."
However, Alito is simply wrong that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" is unprotected speech. The erroneous idea comes from the 1919 case Schenk v. United States. The case concerned whether distributing anti-draft pamphlets could lead to a conviction under the Espionage Act—and had nothing to do with fires or theaters.
In his opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." However, this idea was introduced as an analogy, meant to illustrate that, as Trevor Timm wrote in The Atlantic in 2012, "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 phrase, though an oft-repeated axiom in debates about the First Amendment, is simply not the law of the land now, nor has it ever been—something made all the more apparent when Schenk v. United States was largely overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
"Anyone who says 'you can't shout fire! in a crowded theatre' is showing that they don't know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history," Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff wrote in 2021. "This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It's repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations."
While Alito's mistake is a common one, it is particularly frustrating because, as a Supreme Court Justice, he should know better. The popularity of this myth poses real threats to free speech. "You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre," is often invoked to justify unconstitutional restrictions on speech and to overstate restrictions to the First Amendment. When this myth is adopted by a Supreme Court Justice—no less, the lone dissenter in two recent 8–1 First Amendment cases—it spells danger for our broader cultural understanding of free speech, as well as the values held by those in power.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You can’t falsely cause a panic in a theater. One of the ways you could do that is perhaps to yell “fire”. The problem there is not the speech, but the act. You can yell “fire” in a crowded theater all you like as long as it is not intended to cause a panic. It could be a line in a play. It could be done as a cat call to tell a character in a play to shoot. There are all sorts of circumstances where yelling “fire” in a crowded theater would be appropriate.
The claim that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater has always been one of the most false and dumbest canards. It is like saying “you can’t say you own the Brooklyn Bridge”. Yeah, I can. What I can’t do is say that trying to sell it to you. It is the fraud that is the crime, not the lie.
Exactly. You can even yell fire if you THINK there's a fire but there actually isn't.
The crime comes when you're knowingly lying AND intending on that lie to cause a panic (and thus harm).
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (ans-03) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
Lying is coercion. It compels people falsely under the authority of truth to act in the liars interests instead of their own. That is the only action required to make lying a crime.
Intent matters for criminal prosecution. In civil court, you are likely liable for the consequences of your actions regardless of what your intention is our whether you were merely mistaken.
I'm fairly certain that -- barring settlement to make something go away, at least -- making an honest mistake is even a defense against civil cases.
If you yell "fire" and no one panics because they know you're full of shit, where's the crime?
It would probably still qualify as "disturbing the peace" or something like that.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
If you were looking for a way to earn some extra income every week... Look no more!!!! Here is a great opportunity for everyone to make $95/per hour by working in your free time on your computer from home... I've been doing this for 6 months now and last month i've earned my first five-figure paycheck ever!!!!
Learn more about it on following link..........>>> Topcitypay
" You can yell “fire” in a crowded theater all you like as long as it... could be a line in a play. It could be done as a cat call to tell a character in a play to shoot."
It's sad President Lincoln had to give his life for the 1st Amendment.
Too soon, man!
And besides, other than that Ms Lincoln really did enjoy the play!
Everyone knows what’s meant by the idea. If someone says that you can’t say Briggs is a pedophile (when he’s not) would you argue that the statement is false because the statement might be made in a play?
What if I made the statement spb is a pedofile
Well that’s just provably true. Just like saying Shrike deserves to be brutally tortured to death. Which is a subjective opinion, and cannot be disproven.
a lot of the stormfront rejects like you kuckland seem to be favoring baseless pedophilia accusations lately towards anyone to the left of mitch mcconnell… i think you’re all projecting.
everybody knows Libertarians are the “get-rid-of-age-of-consent-laws-and-let-me-marry-a-14-year-old-if-I-want-to” party...
A lot of teaming piles of lefty shit like you lie about libertarian positions.
So what you are saying is that some forms of "speech" are really acts. Sounds like a no true Scotsman argument. Gives the courts a big hole you can drive a truck through. Just argue that the speech you want to suppress is an act and presto!
But seriously, go ahead and yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and see what happens. When someone trips and falls and breaks an ankle you may find out quickly how free you were.
Not the point. If there's a fire in a theater and I yell "fire" but you trip and fall and break an ankle that's your tough luck.
I can even yell "fire" just to cause a panic but when I do, I become liable for the broken ankles and interruptions to customers' paid entertainment. But I face no criminal sanctions for yelling "fire!", onoy for the damages falsely doing so causes...
What law or case explicitly protects you from criminal prosecution? As far as I know such a case hasn’t been adjudicated. Speech can be criminal. So until it’s adjudicated we don’t know if you’re safe.
The First Amendment, dipshit.
If the first amendment protected lying, perjury wouldn’t be a crime.
Are you suggesting that being required to swear to “tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth” in court violates the first amendment?
You're full of shit, nazi scumbag.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for your 'evidence' to take it apart and wipe your face in it.
And this time, I'll save it to wipe your face in it every time you lie about not being called on your bullshit.
Everyone recognizes your empty bluff.
Like a cur you post your bluff days after the article has moved to the back pages.
That’s your new schtick.
“Rob Misek
You’ve made the same claim only weeks ago and reneged when I immediately gave you the opportunity you requested.
Now you repeat your loser bluff days after the article has moved to the back pages and the last comment was posted.
You’ve demonstrated yourself to be a troll. The next time you troll one of my recent posts as you always do, when other commentators are observing, I’ll repost the evidence that refutes the holocaust as told.
I’ll challenge you again to refute what I said and use this thread to prove for the umpteenth time that you’re a lying waste of skin.
Unlike your false claims, I’ll do it,
You do you. Be a troll.”
Proof of your lying character is in the fact that you’re participating in the Musk/Twitter article currently on the front page with 690 comments where my “evidence” remains unrefuted.
You have had nothing to wait for.
“Sevo 2 days ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Brandyshit deserves nothing other.
Reply “
http://reason.com/2022/10/28/musk-says-he-bought-twitter-to-help-humanity-pledges-not-to-let-it-become-a-free-for-all-hellscape/?comments=true#comments
The thing is, the fact that the substantive holding in Schenck has (thank goodness) been overruled does not mean that the thing the conduct at issue in that case was famously compared to - falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - is also now legal. It is still unprotected and impermissible. It's just that handing out literature opposing the draft is no longer considered comparable to it.
^ This. And that Ms Camp thinks she found a Gotcha to lecture Alito about says more about here than anyone else.
^ This. And why does Camp think the opinions of these others, who aren't in a position to make a legally binding opinion on the Constitution, overrule someone who does?
Democrats pounce?
A sober comment, but overlooks a missing observation in the article and all of the comments: The [federal] constitutional requirement is NOT that people can say anything they please. It merely says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…”. A state COULD adopt a law forbidding particular forms of speech, but almost all have an equivalent ban in their own state constitutions. Falsely yelling “Fire!” is – in almost every case – a civil violation of contract law on private property which bans ANY disruptive acts inside the property (theatre, church, library, etc). Nearly every theater ticket you purchase has a statement on the inverse that, by using the ticket, you agree not to violate the theater’s posted rules. The rules need not be conspicuous, but may be used to eject anyone from the theater at the operator’s whim or even as grounds for a legal civil suit. Any disruptive conduct *allowed* by a theater could be grounds for a civil suit by anyone in attendance against activity that directly leads to personal injury.
So, the rule against disruptive conduct is a thoroughly libertarian private property right – though not a law – supporting only civil conduct in public spaces. (i.e.: be uncivil at home, if you must.)
Er, 14th Amendment? Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Contract law? Jeezus.
Well, at least you're not a Supreme Court Justice...
It doesn't even matter what you yell. I went to a club and a fire broke out. I keep trying to warn everyone by yelling "the roof, the roof, the roof is on fire!" but all the people there said they didn't care and I should let the mother fucker burn
The millennials are staring at you in utter perplexity…
Zdenek Spicka?
There's another reason you could yell "fire" in a crowded theater. If the projectionist screws up, you could yell "Fire the projectionist."
Now do "Congress protecting the 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material is the first amendment of the internet."
Hi. Good night everybody.
Time for Reason's annual PicNit?
It's not to often you find that Judge Samuel Alito has spouted one of White Mike's favorite platitudes.
Another sign of the apocalypse I guess.
Alito has never said you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. He simply said, in certain conditions, it's not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Which would be 100% correct.
The schadenfreude part is that despite the specific ambiguity of ‘Is he merely citing precedence? Endorsing the policy? Euphemistically lumping ‘harm’ and/or ‘falsely’ together? Literally saying ‘nobody can ever yell fire in crowded theater’?… He goes on to unequivocally state that 1A “does not protect the right of everybody to say anything that they want at any time, at any place, and in any way” and that Westboro Baptist’s speech isn’t protected, not because their speech was conducted undesired on private property or was disruptive of other private processes, but because his judicial ESP powers told him their speech was intended to cause emotional harm.
The fact that he did it within 2 min. of Emma’s link and she chose to go with ‘fire in a theater’ seems like a bit of a
swing and a missfoul tip.I am able to obtain 80 dollars per/hr to complete easy work working off of a home computer. I not at all realized that it is possible however one of my greatest mate has collected $25k only within three weeks completing this super job furthermore she satisfied me to avail.
Discover further guidance by reaching following website....>>> Topcitypay
I once yelled " crowded theater" in a fire.
lolz
Steven Wright, is that you?
nd isn’t—protected by the First Amendment, Alito delivered repeated on Tuesday a common constitutional myth.
First, who’s your editor.
And B:) perhaps Alito had a chat with the January 6 committee. After all, yelling “go home” is inciting insurrection or something.
By the way, I don't think Alito did what you think he did here.
The 'selective dissection' of his quote in paragraph 6 made me suspicious of Reason's typical injection of ambiguity, but if you watch for ~5 min. after 45:47, I don't think Emma's swinging at anything outside the strike zone.
As usual, I stand by my first assertion that nobody at Reason has any standing to criticize anyone outside Reason about the 1A on the internet.
Given that the examples he gave included defamation, extortion, and threats it is unlikely that Alito was describing an absolute ban on the practice. Defamation especially given that the same words may or may not be legal depending on the circumstances in which they were uttered, which oddly enough also applies to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Defamation especially given that the same words may or may not be legal depending on the circumstances in which they were uttered, which oddly enough also applies to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Except he goes on specifically to cite the Westboro Baptist Church and explain that they could’ve protested somewhere else or outside the Church after it was empty and justify it using the tautological spaghetti logic of intent and emotions. ‘God says your [male relative] is going to hell.’ is only defamatory if you agree with the WBC’s notions and think you’re owed something because other people will agree with it too. I would *guess* Alito would toss out BLM protesters disrupting a Proud Boys funeral equally, in line with the 1A and equal protection, but that’s not clear from Alito’s spaghetti bowl of emotional harm and leaves it quite open for him or any other justice, at any time, to twirl the spaghetti the other way around their own fork.
This article reminds me of when I was in my early 20s and I discovered that I could "Ackshewallly" my friends and family about commonly held misconceptions (e.g. The sky is blue because it reflects the ocean, or the moon looks larger near the horizon because it is lensed by more atmosphere.)
Unfortunately for Ms Camp, her "Ackshewally" is misplaced, as many others have pointed out elsewhere. If you shout "Fire" in a crowded theater in an attempt to cause a panic, you will be held liable for the damages. And you will not be protected by the First Ammendment.
What, a leftist lying about someone on the right to smugly make a point and a self own, never happens on days that don't end in Y.
Promise it won’t happen tomorrow?
So you're upset that Justice Alito didn't say "falsely" even though it's overwhelmingly implied every time someone refers to that sentence from Schenck. Must be a slow news day.
You CAN falsely say there's fire in the theater. I can tell a crowded classroom that "you will die 7 days after watching this video". The government cannot put you away just for those act.
The government can prosecute me if they can prove criminal intent. Like others have noted, context matters.
I was in boats where little kids shouted "Man overboard!" The captain (or whoever operates the boat) chided them and he could very well forbid such speech on his ship, but that's protected speech as far as government is concerned.
Calm down. I was responding to Emma's nitpicking over Alito not exactly quoting Holmes. Lying, or otherwise stating a falsehood, is protected speech as long as there is no intent to defraud.
As shorthand for broader issues, slogans may sometimes be useful to avoid confusion amongst people who understand the fundamentals being discussed. But substituting slogans for actual concepts - especially when the slogans are quite simply wrong - is a recipe for obfuscation rather than enlightenment. While it might be wrong to shout fire in a crowded theater, it is not illegal. If you try to pass a law against shouting fire in a crowded theater it will be - or should be - struck down by the courts. One of the major problems in the U.S. has been and continues to be unconstitutional laws on the books and the refusal of the courts to strike them down.
Alito only said what the Vatican told him to say.
You fucking know-nothing asshole. Go back to whatever anti-Catholic bigoted shithole you came from, you fucking motherfucker, you.
Is that quote from David Mamet or Martin Scorsese? Hard to tell.
I don't know about Scorsese, but Mamet is a writer, so rather unlikely to deploy a redundant "fucking" in a sentence.
Steaming pile of lefty shit SRG heard from.
You do realize that if he can convince just 4 other people in the whole country to agree with him, then he's right and this column is not?
Holmes was awful.
Not Katie, though. She was cute.
still is.
This is a stupid argument. The law of the land is not the sum of adjudicated cases. It’s what’s explicit and implicit in the Constitution, statutes and case law. The question is whether someone would be found criminally at fault for yelling fire in a crowded theater knowing there’s no fire, for the purpose of causing a panic. Nowhere does the author go there.
Sadly, ideals seem to matter more than the truth these days.
This is a pretty questionable moment to call out "Akshually" at a SC justice.
Myth. Alito was "falsely called out in a crowded theater".
“he was asked where he would "draw the line between protected and unprotected speech."
He was asked his personal opinion And he quoted a famous opinion. He didn’t cite case law.
Author should refund the fees for this article.
I beg to differ. The quote in context does not suggest Alito was speaking literally. Obviously you can (and should) shout fire in a crowded theatre if it is on fire. The point of the metaphor is that speech causing an unjustified panic is not necessarily protected. Nice try Emma.
But you can yell fire in a theater even if there was no fire. Or even if you knew it wasn't a fire.
What if I was in a theater and pranked my friend while talking to him on a phone? "Yo dude there's fire in this theater!!!" What if some people actually believed that got hurt trying to rush out? Maybe they can try to sue me civily, but the government shouldn't be able to put me away for that.
"Yelling" fire at a theater implies putting on an act to fool people. Like Briggs Cunningham says above, that issue with that is with act, not speech.
Swung over to my favorite libertarian news source today.
>>favorite libertarian news source
not Reason?
I said "libertarian" news source.
judges also would have accepted "news source" as operative.
Shots fired!
‘I don’t know why that’s so important to you’, she responded.
Aside from the obvious fact that locking up violent criminals is one of government's few legitimate functions, Zeldin had a guy pull a knife on him, onstage, during a campaign event, and the guy was back on the street within 48 hours.
Assuming the theater is privately owned, and a ticket is bought, then each ticket IMPLICTLY carries a statement that purchasers shall not disturb others and they yours !
Yelling fire when there is none violates that contract !!!
Much like ordering food in a restaurant, there is the assumption (implicit contract) that the orderer intends to pay even though never stated !
@Reason is wrong !
Again!
This is the kind of argument that gets Libertarians painted with a {unreasonable, foolish, zealot} brush, and the painter's are right.
Can you yell "free beer!" in a crowded theater?
What if you yell "False alarm! Back to your seats." in a burning theater?
It would be a mostly peaceful theater fire. Unless you work for the FBI, then it would be a mostly peaceful (government-orchestrated) arson (impossibly/obviously perpetrated by an unrelated patsy other than yourself) with no further questions.
If you were looking for a way to earn some extra income every week... Look no more!!!! Here is a great opportunity for everyone to make $95/per hour by working in your free time on your computer from home... I've been doing this for 6 months now and last month i've earned my first five-figure paycheck ever!!!!
Learn more about it on following link..........>>> Topcitypay
Yelling “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater is so played out! Wanna have some real fun? Leap up abruptly from your seat, rip open your jacket and, while reaching into it scream “ALLAH-U-AKBAR!!”
Oh, the chuckles I’ve had!
Yes, because Samuel Alito is the Supreme Court Justice we libertarians should all be concerned about.
Congratulations, Emma, you're an idiot. He obviously meant falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (which, indeed, is not protected by the First Amendment).
Reason sure knows how to pick'em...
A Supreme Court justice should be among the last persons to forget to mention the "falsely" bit of that dictum.
Embarrassing.
People, please, read Brandenburg vs Ohio already.
You CAN falsely shout FIRE in a crowded theater, and it wasn't the fact that he forgot to say "falsely" that's the problem here. Does no one else bear any responsibility for their actions if someone shouts fire? Like it's a button that turns on The Purge? Everyone is suddenly a raging idiot heading toward the exits, women and children be damned. Every man for himself?
Speech is only unprotected if it's intended (and likely) to incite imminent lawless action, with "imminent" being the keyword.
So the real danger is someone shouting "the Kaiser lost" at a Nazi rally, or "Trump lost" at a Grabbers Of Pussy klanbake?
Camp, I don't know if this is the sick burn you seem to think it is. After watching the video, the only thing that Justice Alito did not explicitly do was point out to legal illiterates the shortcomings of the Holmes 'fire' canard. Given the audience, this seems to make sense, but as I can't read his mind, I cannot say what his intent was.
Really have to disagree. He listed "shouting fire in a crowded theater" along with extortion, threats, defamation, and fraud as "established exceptions" of unprotected speech. It was a big WTF moment for me, as it should be for anyone who values the freedom of speech.
No True Scotsman! You'll find that low quality trolls, shills, and drive-bys don't last long here. Especially when they completely ignore what was written by other commenters in making their weak arguments. As you did, w/ your risible assumption that people need to read Brandenburg, and inability to parse sarcasm. If I were a betting man, I would wager that you were biased against Justice Alito before seeing this, based on your need to lecture others.
The author was really, really fishing for something to write about.
Rent will be due in a few days, that may have something to do with it.
The key words are "falsely," "shout" & "crowded." If there is a fire and you are the first to spot it, you better shout "fire". If you simply mention to the person next to you that there is a fire, that is protected speech. If there are two people in the theater, you can shout "fire" to your heart's content.
One more example of the crappy President that was Woodrow Wilson. Between the "Espionage Act of 1917" (leading to the Schenk v US referenced above), initiating a requirement for Americans to have a passport even to exit the US (not to mention re-enter) in 1918, racial segregation of Federal workers, and signing off on the creation of the Federal Reserve, he ranks near the top of the list of anti-liberty Presidents.
The Federal Reserve and implementation of the Income Tax were both reactions to the Europeans murdering each other for shrinking opiate markets. The bank cartel made it easier to get paid for selling arms and supplies to the belligerents. The bad decision was to start offering CREDIT to a bunch of dope dealer cartels in a gang war. Just as bad was the decision to start meddling in those markets to please China's mystical prohibitionist hereditary monarchy in its beheading campaigns back in 1903.
The 13th Amendment made it illegal to enslave women as reproductive dams. This, too is lost on Palito. Dry Czarist Russia's troops turned and killed their godly masters and dropped out of WW1. So the Suprema Corte brushed aside the 13A prohibition of conscription and kids went into poison trenches Over There. After all, Federal Reserve banks had fronted truckloads of gold to the heroin exporters "we" liked--the good guys. Naturally, they wanted it back.
It is unprotected speech.
IF all speech is protected then you switch the contention to "what qualifies as speech?" Nude dancing, burning a flag, crosses on lawns, etc. Then you really lose because you can't dance and block fire trucks, you can't burn a flag near a hydrogen storage tank, and you can't burn a cross that you don't own.
You lose, root and branch, as they say
I wish I knew then what I know now. The editorial intrigued me so I took some time to research the topic more deeply. In the end I was unable to escape the conclusion that Justice Alito had read Justice Douglas’s concurrence in which he observed that falsely yelling fire to cause a panic was “a classic case where speech is brigaded with action". The distinction that you can yell fire when it’s true or a line in a play is important but ignores common usage and common sense and sidesteps the essential question of whether the Federal government can limit speech, or not protect speech that is false or should reasonably be known to be false to bring our fellow citizens to harm. In this discussion we must not conflate political speech and lies that are intended to cause harm. Nor should we blindly argue that all lies are protected speech since some lies are in and of themselves crimes.
The limitations on speech on social media sites is not in question since this is a matter of contract between the site and the user (like the one that governs comments on this site). If someone violates the contract they should expect it to be enforced. And, if one broad class of users violates the contract more often than other classes they shouldn’t complain about discrimination.
Thought provoking as it was the editorial is deeply flawed and the topic deserve a more thoughtful treatment.
Justice Alito is correct; shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not necessarily protected free speech. Look no further than Justice Douglas' concurrence in Brandenburg. He says, "[Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre] is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution." Keep in mind Justice Douglas is perhaps the most pro-free speech Justice to ever sit on the Court and even he is saying one can be prosecuted for falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Justice Douglas lied twice in one sentence. "[F]alsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" is not an analogy to Schenk handing out antiwar leaflets, not even during a world war. And "falsely" was not an element of the crime nor proven in court - although most of Schenk's claims were BS, I suspect that there was enough truth that the Wilson administration would never have allowed Schenk to present evidence in open court. Note that Alito and nearly everyone else that quotes Douglas omits "falsely", but if they acknowledged the falsity of the analogy (and all the court decisions since that went the other way), they'd have nullified their own argument.
What you left out in the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision is:
The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."
Shouting fire in a crowded theater would certainly come under the first as it would produce imminent lawless action by the theatergoers. Every seen a panicked crowd trying to exit a building? The manager or candy counter lady immediately calls 911. Someone pulls the fire alarm switch. People die and get hurt. Public resources are wasted and diverted from actual emergencies.
Summary of the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492