[lawlessquestion]

The government can limit speech if they have a compelling reason (the governments reasoning outweighs the persons freedom of speech, think yelling fire in a crowded theater). If the government has a compelling reason they can only limit the speech in the most narrowly tailored way to accomplish their goal and still allow the most freedom of speech possible.

[int_19h]

Ah, "yelling fire in a crowded theater". I wonder how many people who use that phrase are aware of the original context in which it was introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

TL;DR: during WW1, Socialist Party members protested against the war, and particularly against the draft. As part of those protests, they handed out leaflets that encouraged those eligible to resist the draft. The government cracked down on it, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, likening the action to "shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic".

Thankfully, the present standard is "imminent lawless action" instead, which is a far higher bar for the government to meet if it wants to regulate speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio