I do think the parent is overstating the case a bit, but I also think you're looking at it backwards. The constitution guarantees you the right to free speech a

I do think the parent is overstating the case a bit, but I also think you're looking at it backwards. The constitution guarantees you the right to free speech and then carefully circumscribes what the exceptions to that are (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel, and others) and those exceptions have sharpened by the courts. But the courts are required by precedent to place a great deal of weight to free speech, and it's generally required that the government prove in these cases that the right to free speech hasn't been violated, or that it passes the strict scrutiny test [1], which is a high bar, and doubly so when it comes to free speech. In other words, "you're allowed to say what you want" is the default. Thus, a "well, there are exceptions to free speech" counterargument carries the burden of articulating why this particular piece of speech qualifies for such an exception. It's true that many kinds of gag orders have been considered constitutional but many have also failed to past muster and been lifted by courts. I'm no expert, but I suspect the ones in question here likely don't qualify for the exceptions they're claiming to have, because the orders (and the laws that enable them) are very broad, can not be justified by a compelling government interest, and possibly other issues. Time (and the courts) will tell. The point is: railing that this kind of gag order is an absurd violation of free speech isn't fallacious just because yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech. It actually is the expectation being expressed in the constitution. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny Edit: typos and clarity