"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1] — Wikipedia

Here's an example of workplace free speech suppression: My social service agency employer held a training session on a method of therapy they wanted staff to use. The presenter began by announcing that the staff were expected to accept what was taught that day without objection or discussion. I, being the usual suspect and designated problem person, duly objected. — BC

I would prefer 100% free speech to 100% security — NOS4A2

I have a hard time seeing how words can threaten security. — NOS4A2

But then again maybe there is some sort of biological mechanism in some people that allows speech to push them around in some way, like sorcery. Who knows? — NOS4A2

But at no point in American history have these rights not been violated. There are laws against slander, perjury, fraud, and so on. — NOS4A2

But then again maybe there is some sort of biological mechanism in some people that allows speech to push them around in some way, like sorcery. Who knows? — NOS4A2

One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing. — NOS4A2

The problem is in most cases we can never know what might have exised in that gaping hole. — NOS4A2

Take a look at the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to get a sense of the vandal’s project. Voltaire, Montesquieu, John Locke, Hume, Balzac—more than a few gems were subject to ban. Look at the works thrown into Nazi fires or destroyed by Commie censors. Luckily these days publishers can stay ahead of it and with smuggling some works can reach others. I imagine that wasn’t the case before the printing press. I can never know what Galileo or Bruno might have written if they were able to express themselves freely, but I guess we can be content enough with what was able to reach us. — NOS4A2

The problem is in most cases we can never know what might have exised in that gaping hole. — NOS4A2

No matter what it is I’d prefer to know and decide on my own accord rather than remain ignorant about it and let someone else decide for me. — NOS4A2

We can never know if the Athenian youth made it through their lives uncorrupted or whether the act of censorship served well to protect them—frankly, who cares?—but we can intuit what was lost, or rather, stolen from posterity. One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing. — NOS4A2

I would prefer 1 to 2 — NOS4A2

This goes to my point that censors will use the promise of future damage to justify present censorship. — NOS4A2

One could never know the beauty or ugliness of what once stood there, could have stood there, or what might occur should we chance to look on it again. — NOS4A2

I always face the insoluble problem of who I would give the right to decide what I can or cannot say and read, as if I was a child or student. I cannot come up with anyone or any group of people, dead or alive, who are fit for the task. — NOS4A2

It is the concern of an unwelcome and meddlesome third party who has neither the character nor knowledge to know what others can or cannot say, or what they can and cannot hear. All they possess is their own sentiment, and that counts for little in these matters. — NOS4A2

What you find offensive says nothing about what I would find offensive. — NOS4A2

So what? That's the question you keep dodging. Why do expect anyone to give a fuck about whether you miss out on a few non-pc jokes you might not have found offensive but others do?

I'm not arguing that anyone knows what you'll find offensive. I'm not arguing that the censor we choose will get it right all the time. I'm asking you why it matters.

Because we're neither children nor slaves. Such behavior is unjust and stupid. — NOS4A2