The history of the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy illustrates why free speech should be fiercely protected.
The analogy was first made by Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes as part of his decision in the case U.S. v. Schenck:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."
Charles Schenck was accused of violating the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet in opposition to the draft during World War I. You can read the pamphlet here if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v.UnitedStates#Background
As you will see the pamphlet consists of a copy of the Thirteenth Amendment on one side, and a page of arguments for resisting the draft on the other. No calls for overthrow of the government, nor any call to violence whatsoever. However, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Schencks appeal, and Schenck served ten years in prison for distributing the pamphlet.
Other people were imprisoned for making similarly mild critiques of government policy.
So, I recommend opposition to almost all restrictions on freedom of speech because authoritarians will use even the slightest excuse to kidnap, cage, and kill people who criticize the government.
