I have always found this refrain about freedom of speech vs freedom from consequences to be grating. I can think of only three categories of things a government

I have always found this refrain about freedom of speech vs freedom from consequences to be grating. I can think of only three categories of things a government can do: 1. Prevent the words from being spoken in the first place. This includes things like gag orders, confiscating computers and internet connections, literally gagging someone, or locking them in jail. 2. Delete the words, once spoken, from the public record. 3. Punish the person for having spoken the words. I.e., the consequences. This includes things like deleting their accounts, placing them in jail, confiscating newspapers, burning books, etc. When the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which of these categories of actions do you think it restricts? IANAL, but my understanding is that the government retains the right to restrict speech through all three categories (for national security, prurient interest, integrity of court trials, etc.), but is broadly restricted from having unabridged power in all of them.