Shouting, "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theatre"

I'm absolutely sick of this line of argument of, "Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre", being used against free speech.

And the most ironic thing, is that the people who have used this phrase regularly, in the past, and in the present, have been emblems of "irresponsible" speech, in various ways.

In fact, as pointed out by Christopher Hitchens (And if it needs to be stated by him, then you know it's time to step in and refute this argument), the actual line was first used in a trial against Yiddish speaking Socialists, who were campaigning against the First World War in America (You know...the war that was undoubtedly the biggest waste of life in human history, all over paranoia and warlords getting war thirsty)

But, okay, let's refute the crux of this line.

First of all, the example isn't valid, in comparison to "Hate Speech", as you're legally bound, by either Health & Safety law, or order of the theatre staff, to leave the building if there's reason to believe a fire is occurring in the building.

Point being: it is a forced reaction. You have to react in a certain way when hearing that.

Now, let's compare that with the worst form of "Hate Speech", which would be, say, advocating the death of a person or people. Even when you hear somebody advocating such, you don't have to react, by going out and killing the aforementioned individual(s). It is NOT a forced reaction. And, well, because of that, it's ENTIRELY OPTIONAL when someone does concede with the viewpoints expressed, and goes out and kills someone. They chose to do that, and you'd have to look at the individuals' psyche to reconcile why they went out to kill someone. So, in theory, the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument doesn't compare with advocating someone's death. And, really, would saying, "Oh, well, I only killed so and so because somebody advocated it", stand up in court? Most certainly not.

And then there's another huge problem: intent of speech. What if a satirist were to jokingly advocate somebody's death, and somebody were to then take him seriously? Would that be, "Hate Speech"? And if you made a distinction, in legality, how could it be proven? How can you prove, whether someone was being satirical, at the end of it all? Or even literally, for that matter? Our language is soaked in ambiguity, after all.

But even this is taking an extreme, because often, this argument is, in fact, used against people who don't necessarily advocate the deaths of individuals, but who espouse a viewpoint that would be seen as "racist", or whatever.

What does banning these viewpoints do to help, anyway? All it does, is give them a seemingly legitimate case, by claiming the establishment has "something to hide". Hate Speech laws are petrol for the fire; they exacerbate the issue of extremists, and make their case more covered widespread.

Which would make shouting, "Fire!", in a crowded theatre an apt thing to do.