Prohibitions on shouting fire in a crowded theater (as a practical joke, not as a warning) are not considered controversial in any country, given the potential for imminent harm.
In order for a statute that places limits on speech based on its content to be found Constitutional, it must pass strict scrutiny analysis as set forth in United States v. O’Brien (1968).
[3][non-primary source needed] To Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, it was of the utmost importance to keep all speech free in order for the truth to emerge and to have a civil society.
Freedom of teaching shall not absolve one from loyalty to the Constitution.”[10] Speech can be limited as long as it is in a sense proportional to the right it is protecting - this emphasizes the Courts’ belief that “prioritizes personal liberty over government regulation.”[11] The proportionality test is as follows: “…the Court must be satisfied by the following elements: (i) the means used by the government (i.e. regulation or prohibition) are suitable to further a legitimate objective of governmental action, (ii) there is no equally effective but less restrictive means available to serve the same public purpose, and (iii) there is an appropriate, defensible relationship between the importance of the public good to be achieved and the intrusion upon the otherwise protected right.”[11] The German Criminal Code expands punishment from civil liability to criminal punishment and imprisonment if Articles 130 and 131 are violated.
In Thailand, under Article 112 of the Thai criminal code, anyone can file a complaint against anyone else who "allegedly defames, insults or threatens the king, the queen, the heir-apparent or the regent" and the police are obligated to investigate.
[16] In Cambodia, Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain, criticism of royalty and government are considered criminal speech, and are prosecutable (including prison sentencing) under the law.