Shouting fire in a crowded theater was an analogy used that came from a case that tried to prosecute speech that opposed the draft in WW1.
That case was overturned.
I wouldn't disagree that speech can cause unjust harm, but I'm asking more about what the legal case is that it doesn't violate the first amendment, which is totally separate from nap violations.
When that case was overturned, it was in part, and the new ruling essentially said that acceptably banned speech would need to be likely to produce imminent lawless action. That's not really what defamation is.
Like... If the defamation case is the newspaper says "John Smith is a shitty person", and the consequences is John's reputation takes a bit and he's harmed because nobody wants to buy his widgets anymore, nobody is legally required to buy his widgets.
I'd be cool with swatting being illegal, given it's essentially ordering a hit, or filing a false police report that is essentially conspiring to produce false imprisonment.
But what the law should be isn't really what I'm asking, and defamation cases are usually falsely claiming a company makes a bad product or harming someone's reputation that makes them less likely to be hired or causes them distress or something.