That doesn't make any sense. According to the U.S. Gov't, Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right (review the deeply discussed Supreme Court cases on the mat

That doesn't make any sense. According to the U.S. Gov't, Freedom of Speech is not an absolute right (review the deeply discussed Supreme Court cases on the matter, often summed up with the question: is it a right to yell fire in a crowded theater?). So if Freedom of Speech were an absolute value when applied to an opinion, it would then be absolutely acceptable for someone to yell fire in a crowded theater if they struck a match. Factually, there is a fire. But it doesn't make it safe to yell fire when the fire is of no grave danger. Perhaps according to Anonymous, Freedom of Speech is an absolute right. Perhaps Anonymous would disseminate nuclear launch codes. The probability that Anonymous would ever be in a position to do so or to cause such an event to occur is effectively zero, for the explicit reason that the gov't hides those launch codes instead of just asking the nice people out there like Anonymous to not acquire them or disseminate them. Now imagine if you know of a fact that the gov't is doing something highly illegal, such as grinding up old people, processing them into green wafers and feeding the masses with them. It's not your opinion that this is illegal, it is a fact. It is also a gov't secret. If freedom of speech were only to be applied to your opinion, you would not be legally allowed to divulge the information. By no rational measure could freedom of speech be applied only to opinions.