Get the quote right.
One can't yell fire in a crowed theater and claim protection via the 1st Amendment.
Let's at least get the lead-in quote correct (I do see that the article you quoted had the right version):
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words 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."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Note the "False" specification.
This one always bothers me when it is misquoted because (a) it is almost always misquoted, and (b) the real quote and context is quite a bit different from what most people thinks it is. Changing (omitting) the one word transforms it from a qualified argument about when people can or can not say things into an absolute prohibition, when in almost every case that I've seen examined, the entirety of the events surrounding the speech are considered. As was done in both the Skokie and Brandenburg cases.