Jacoby claims in paragraph 2 that she "believes in an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment

Jacoby claims in paragraph 2 that she "believes in an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment." What does such an interpretation involve? Would it permit shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater even though the shouter knows there is no fire? Would it permit shouting racist insults at blacks or immigrant Vietnamese? Spreading untruths about someone's past? If the "absolutist" interpretation of the First Amendment does permit these statements, does that argument show that nothing is morally wrong with uttering them? (Does the First Amendment, as actually interpreted by the Supreme Court today, permit any or all of these daims?
Consult your reference librarian for help in answering this question.)