> The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected.
It might be an example for speech that ought not be protected, but it's not an example of unprotected speech grounded in either the preexisting case law or any precedential rule in Schenk that is still operative, so it's not a useful touchpoint for analysis. It's pure unsupported dicta sandwiched between two well-referenced points of law in the decision.
> Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
Intent is not an element of the well-known hypothetical described in Schenk, nor the even more abbreviated form derived from it raised in this thread.
It might be an example for speech that ought not be protected, but it's not an example of unprotected speech grounded in either the preexisting case law or any precedential rule in Schenk that is still operative, so it's not a useful touchpoint for analysis. It's pure unsupported dicta sandwiched between two well-referenced points of law in the decision.
> Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
Intent is not an element of the well-known hypothetical described in Schenk, nor the even more abbreviated form derived from it raised in this thread.
reply