According to some of the old cases I looked up on the Net, the "yelling fire" offense has to have three things intact to be considered criminally injuring - imminence, intent, and likelihood of action.
Schenck v. United States, and later - Brandenburg v. Ohio. Not that I agree with the article at all, but mere advocacy of something "injuring" isn't enough. False statements on the other hand is a different ballgame. It actually depends on who said it and who it was said about. Since Nuclear Power in general isn't really an entity, it would be hard to lock these idiots up. What a shame.
This all assumes that the supreme court correctly interpreted the first amendment. The amendment itself doesn't provide specific examples so telling someone to go read the constitution is kind of silly. What matters is how it is interpreted.
