Dan Bongino

I'll show you that first.

If you really want a thorough breakdown of it, The Atlantic's a pretty left-wing paper, but this article's really good by Jeff Koseff.

We've used it a thousand times.

Hat tip, producer Jim.

I knew when he saw this yesterday because we just covered it on the show.

We'll put this out there.

America's favorite flimsy pretext for limiting free speech.

Accusing people of shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't sufficient grounds for regulating what they say.

Now, all Congressman McPride had to do, because he chooses to be dumb,

is go to like Google Gemini or one of their favorite left-wing AI generators and just put in, tell me about the First Amendment and fire at a movie theater.

So I did it for the congressman.

The case is an overturned precedent, overturned by Brandenburg versus Ohio, which set a higher bar.

Speech can only be suppressed if it incites imminent lawless action.

While a hypothetical analogy, it was likely influenced by real-life early 20th century panic events.

Today, the phrase is recognized as a misunderstanding of current First Amendment law, which protects most speech unless it directly causes immediate panic or violence.

They could have just looked that up.

The congressman could have just looked it up.

But we had to do the homework for them, right, Justin?

Because RW, buddy, I love you.

But there's a third party listening who I promise just learned something.