Well it is a bait and switch. This is when one example for speech that is perceived as acceptable to censor is used to justify personal beliefs about other speech.
"Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". The claim that some speech is not protected is not the same as the claim that because of that some other particular speech is not protected. There has to be a fundamental similarity between two sets of circumstances such that they can both be prevented for the same reason. "Not all speech is protected, that is not in dispute, but the speech you're claiming isn't protected actually is" would be the problem.
"This dogmatic/fundamentalist interpretation of freedom doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an ideologue. There are well-known and widely accepted exceptions to freedom such as curbs on freedom of speech e.g. not yelling “fire” in a crowded space and inciting violence. There are trade-offs between freedom and curbs on freedoms (policies) that benefit the greater good of society. "
To use the "fire" example to make the point that there must be a line somewhere sounds fine to me.
> "Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed".
Who said that? Obviously you can't use the "fire" example to prove anything you want.
It was an example. You were asking how the "fire in a crowded theater" argument was being misused and I gave an explanation, that it is an example that some speech is not protected, which is not in dispute, but is often used as justification for not protecting other, unrelated speech.
"Fire in a crowded theater, and therefore you cannot claim that the election is disputed". The claim that some speech is not protected is not the same as the claim that because of that some other particular speech is not protected. There has to be a fundamental similarity between two sets of circumstances such that they can both be prevented for the same reason. "Not all speech is protected, that is not in dispute, but the speech you're claiming isn't protected actually is" would be the problem.