All rights are absolute by definition. When an activity interferes with the absolute rights of another, it is, by definition NOT a right.
Back to the yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater (when there is none, duh; I can't believe I had to include this disclaimer). There being consequences for such is not a limitation on the Right; the act is NOT a right; the act is not protected by the enumeration of the Right. The act could interfere with others' rights as a result of the predictable panic and mass exit. Acts which usurp the real rights of others are not themselves rights.
Rights are absolute.
Rights can only be removed by due process of law.
Therefore, acts which infringe on the rights of others cannot have been rights in the first place.
By not recognizing the absolute nature of rights advocates against the exercise of certain rights can justify infringements on them by means other than noting that a particular act was not really a right because of its infringement on an actual right and other than through due process of law.