Perhaps we need online equivalents. Online on one hand you have 4chan and the other Hacker News. It's a race to the bottom in some sense if all bets are off.
Actually Schenck v. United States was partially overturned and severely limited 53 years ago, so that hasn't been correct, technically, for some time. iow, you probably can shout fire in a crowded theater, but it depends on the circumstances whether you'll be arrested, whether you've presented a clear and present danger, whether you caused a stampede, whether anyone was injured or killed. But if you are arrested, it won't be a free speech case. The charge will be disorderly conduct, or negligent homicide, or some other charge. Justice Holmes' quote has sort of taken on a life of its own as a determination of what speech is not protected, but really there's no law against it. FWIW, I'm not advocating for it, just being pedantic.
Actually, the “fire” line was dicta in Schenck, so it technically was never true.
This…seems like splitting hairs in a way to me.
It seems like a pretty clear acknowledgment that, in certain contexts, speech can be criminal.
After all, in those various charges it won’t be a free speech case because it’s settled law that speech in those particular contexts can result in a criminal charge.
So, I agree that the infamous line from Schenck (which was dicta already) is not good law. On the other hand, there is a kernel of truth that certain speech, in certain contexts, can be illegal and result in criminal charges.
It's honestly madness that this "fire in a crowded theatre" still comes up given where it originated - a court case where exactly the kind of speech that people worry about being restricted was in fact restricted.