> I think it's clear that the First Amendment protects its use. I'm not so sure. The Second Amendment's "keep and bear arms" doesn't protect my ability to buy

> I think it's clear that the First Amendment protects its use. I'm not so sure. The Second Amendment's "keep and bear arms" doesn't protect my ability to buy and keep any gun I want, regardless of how obvious a reading that seems, so I wouldn't count on the First's "the freedom of speech" to protect the use of any words. In context, it's between the freedom of religion and the freedom of the press, of assembly, and of petitioning the government. It makes sense that it protects advocating any political viewpoint. It does not necessarily follow that it protects words in general. The judicial history of the freedom of speech clause is mostly about political speech, speech critical of the government, etc. Advertising is heavily regulated. Copyright infringement is illegal. Lying to federal agents is illegal. Obscenity is still unprotected (though very few things are considered obscene today). And if we look at what the framers intended, well, many of them went on to vote for the Alien and Sedition Acts (which are widely considered today to have been unconstitutional). I think there is a lot of merit in a constitutional protection of the right to say any word. It's just not clear to me that a law preventing you from saying a single word (any word!) runs afoul of the freedom of speech clause, specifically.