Part 10/12:
Most troubling is Holmes’s assertion that the "most stringent protection" of free speech would not protect someone "falsely shouting fire," implying that even truthful speech could be limited if circumstances are deemed dangerous. This opens the door for abuses: what constitutes a "danger" can be subjectively defined and politically manipulated.
The Danger of "Laws of Convenience"
The discussion points to a critical philosophical tension: whose judgment determines the scope of rights during emergencies? If authorities decide when a crisis exists, they can suspend rights at will. Such discretion can lead to permanent erosion of civil liberties under the guise of protecting security.