> I don't want to live in a police state where local authorities can arbitrarily wield such broad powers.
What about the current pandemic seems arbitrary? Things can be bad in one context and okay in another. Like freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right (except for things putting people in danger like falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater).
The legacy is even more relevant to the topic. See [0].
> Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.
The point is that freedom of speech isn't universal and context matters.
> The original wording used in Holmes's opinion ("falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic") highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.
> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
I only read the ACLU one but that asserts the same.
The the advocation against war was deigned on the fact that you're "in danger". The fight against the government was about the sliding scale of the remit, not about the original statement being "legal" or not.
Incitement is a real crime, if you knowingly falsely shout "fire" or "he's got a gun" then you're guilty of inciting panic[0].
It is unequivocolly not legal to _knowingly_ and _falsely_ incite panic.
Though, proving that might be difficult, and it appears to be a misdemeanour charge, if it leads to death you can be sure you will be tried for manslaughter.
What about the current pandemic seems arbitrary? Things can be bad in one context and okay in another. Like freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right (except for things putting people in danger like falsely screaming fire in a crowded theater).