But you haven't actually made any meaningful or intelligent point because that phrase clearly illustrates that there is no right to speech that is false and dangerous - which quite obviously is not the same thing as war protesting. The original case and any imagined conflation is obviously delusional - even if once made by Holmes. It's only boring because you've tried to be supercilious and instead ending up looking nonsensical by clinging to an erroneous opinion from over 100 years ago.

Toodles