[Genuine Realist]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

It''s worth reminding some posters where the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy comes from. It was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States, in an opinion upholding the conviction of radical passing out anti-draft literature in front of military offices because that sort of speech was considered just too dangerous. 

I think the public can handle dangerous speech. Much more dangerous is someone deciding what is or is not dangerous.

[Genuine Realist]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

It''s worth reminding some posters where the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy comes from. It was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States, in an opinion upholding the conviction of radical passing out anti-draft literature in front of military offices because that sort of speech was considered just too dangerous. 

I think the public can handle dangerous speech. Much more dangerous is someone deciding what is or is not dangerous.