"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[Warren DeMontague]

15. The speech itself is not prohibited, that's one important distinction.

In fact, you might notice that to be the way which municipalities and states, etc. have gotten around what is an expansive 1st Amendment that protects, yes, even the most noxious forms of speech (i.e. Phelps); it is far more constitutionally feasable to regulate where something may be said, and in what context, than to regulate the speech itself- this is how we have gotten, for better or worse, the "free speech" or "protest zones" around conventions, etc.

That said, the so-called "fighting words" aspect of limiting the 1st Amendment has been upheld but seriously narrowed over the past 50 years, so as to render it essentially meaningless. And if you think about it, that is right- because in our modern pluralistic society, it IS meaningless. "Saying something that might make an individual or group so angry they might be forced to become violent"? Can't you think of, for instance, gay pride events or speeches that might make raging homophobes so angry they felt "forced" to become violent? Shit, some right wing teabag nutsticks seem to come unglued every time the President opens his mouth. Surely the president can't have his speech restricted on the grounds of "fighting words" just because every time he talks about protecting the right to abortion or contraception, a few crazy clinic protesters turn into the tasmanian devil?