Wait a second. I commented that people often get wrong the thing about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You asked me to explain. Several people have already asked *you* to explain *your* claim, yet you continue down the same path of wrongness. It's on you to figure it out.
And the audacity to just go "Actually the particulars I'm arguing aren't important" whenever pressed is exasperating. The general point is tedious. The particulars are where any claim about curtailing press freedom will hold up or fall apart.
Is freedom of speech absolute? Is freedom of the press absolute? My only argument is that freedom of the press should not be absolute. It offers immense power but should come with equally immense responsibility.
Who said freedom of the press is or should be absolute?
So, we should be able to ban anyone named Robert Ingersall from speaking at all? Remember, "freedom of speech is not absolute", so this should be cool by you, right?