Unfortunately, you have to account for humans not being entirely (or even chiefly, every so often) driven by reason.
This is why crying "Fire!!" in a crowded theater is not considered free speech.
Unfortunately again, there's no easy and decisive test to show what kind of utterance leads to direct harm, and what does not; this space is unavoidably nebulous. This is why it's often left for courts to decide on a case by case basis.
The US constitution guarantees that the government will not suppress free speech. But the US society needs to find mechanisms to channel speech on uncomfortable subjects so that it is not entirely suppressed and so the voices against the majority opinion can be heard, but also so that it's not leading to imminent violence and the loss of the rule of law. Without the rule off law, all free speech protections would be lost anyway.
> This is why crying "Fire!!" in a crowded theater is not considered free speech.
To be precise, it _is_ considered protected free speech. For it to not be protected, the speaker has to _knowingly_ say it _falsely_.[1]
Also, this was only a hypothetical example from a SCOTUS case where an American was petitioning WW1 draftees to ignore/avoid the draft, which is far less of a black and white situation (a fire is an eminent danger to the people in the room, a war across the ocean is not), which reinforces your point.
This is why crying "Fire!!" in a crowded theater is not considered free speech.
Unfortunately again, there's no easy and decisive test to show what kind of utterance leads to direct harm, and what does not; this space is unavoidably nebulous. This is why it's often left for courts to decide on a case by case basis.
The US constitution guarantees that the government will not suppress free speech. But the US society needs to find mechanisms to channel speech on uncomfortable subjects so that it is not entirely suppressed and so the voices against the majority opinion can be heard, but also so that it's not leading to imminent violence and the loss of the rule of law. Without the rule off law, all free speech protections would be lost anyway.