Oh, I see. Your objection is to the broadcast of Leary's words in a publically available venue, not to the individual right of Leary to actually speak the words. Correct?
Of course, I'm still having trouble with your notion that Leary's words were somehow subject to constitutional exception.
Correct. I have no interest in restricting his private speech - unless it happens within my hearing, in which case, I will respond as I see fit, up to and including a punch in the nose.
But speech made in a public venue entails certain additional responsibilities, a fact which used to be recognized by the states. It would be better if individual broadcasters, rather than governmental entities, did the regulating. This in fact was what happened in the days of the Hayes Code.
As an example, CBS decided a few years ago to air a tape of Jack Kevorkian giving one of his "patients" a lethal injection. Some stations in Louisiana refused to carry it. I applaud that decision, but regret that CBS itself didn't have the decency to refrain from broadcasting a snuff film in the first place. In a decent society, such an action would so thoroughly damage CBS's reputation that they might have to close their doors, but alas it did not come to pass.
The media always selects what material it chooses to publish, and edits it as it wishes. These days it consistently makes choices which "appeal to prurient interest", as the phrase used to go. The result has been a continual, gradual decline in the quality of our discourse, especially as it is well known that no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people. "Change the channel" is an insufficient response when there are almost no alternative choices. When the only way to avoid filth is to withdraw from participation in the public forum, it serves to suppress ("chill"?) the expression of those advocating decency. Which is, ultimately, the motivation behind the protection of the prurience in the first place.