Originally Posted by BucEyedPea
Not falsely because it creates a "clear and present danger."
Well, not falsely, no. That was the basis of Holmes decision in Schenck.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre 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.
The possibility of breaking and entering into a house where the perp would have reason to believe the home owner had guns at his/her disposal is not a substantive evil. The newspaper did not create a clear and present danger in publicizing who had gun permits. Forbes tells us who the richest people in the world are and that would seem to cause a case for breaking and entering, yet its still legal and not despicable or verminous.