“The First Amendment is not absolute. You can’t falsely scream fire.”
Why do they always bring out this argument for restricting the BOR. It is a bogus argument used to reduce the BOR.
Shall I presume that by BOR you mean "Bill of Rights"?
As I understand the history, this quote about "You can’t falsely scream fire.” comes from the "Great Dissenter", Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1919 for the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, a WW1 espionage & free speech case.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater 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.
Note the referral to a restricted Congress implicit in the US Constitution. Paging Professor Obama, please pick up the CONSTITUTION white phone.
And they always forget -- or grossly expand -- the doctrine of "clear and present danger."