Is not tolerating the intolerant intolerant

[Edwardo Piet]

No, of course not. But then you have to gauge "intent." It is not the act itself which is inherently good or bad.

I think that it is ultimately just the act. But malicious intentions usually lead to more long-term (and often short-term) negative consequences.

A fact which Oliver Wendell Holmes duly considered in writing his opinion...and one which is almost always eliminated when people use that example.

I have a Consequentalist understanding of why bad intentions are usually worse than good intentions. I can't say I disagree.

[...]
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment."

I agree with him.

BTW, Holmes' opinion in this case was later overturned by the court.

That really sucks. He had an absolutely solid perspective on the matter.

What is the Law on the matter today? Forgive me for my ignorance of Law, America and Geography and politics in general and whatnot.