[IceyEC]

Not all speech is protected:

Holmes's famous phrase means that not all forms of speech are protected. For example, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, child pornography, true threats, fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, criminal solicitation or defamation.[1]

[1]: http://1forall.us/teach-the-first-amendment/the-first-amendm...

[dragonwriter]

"Holmes famous phrase" was an emotional argument irrelevant to the facts of the case it was offered in, unsupported by the case law then or now, in one of the most repugnant, anti-free-speech decisions in history, which allowed criminal punishment for pure political speech (and which has since been overturned.)

[pdabbadabba]

I agree with you about Schenck, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the broader point at hand. Whatever you might think about Schenck, it is indisputably correct under American law that there are significant categories of speech that can be either proscribed or compelled. Schenck is just one of very many cases that demonstrate this.

[bitwize]

Holmes uttered his famous phrase in a Supreme Court opinion upholding the criminalization of criticizing the draft -- which is in more recent times thought to be overstepping the bounds of the 1A.

So while not all speech is protected, the notion of what is protected can change over time -- hopefully in a pro-liberty direction.

[zamalek]

Indeed.

The ELI5 of free speech is: you can say whatever you want so long as it doesn't come at a cost to another legal entity (normally people, but not always).

One example that I found very demonstrative while trying to intuitively understand FOS was a very extreme one[1]. It's a difficult but worthwhile read. The best way to understand FOS is to read up[2] on how it has been applied.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_Am... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Free_Sp...