[Sloth]

It is possible for people to differ on the specific applications -- for example, exactly how far the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" type of exceptions should go -- but that is not a dispute over the fundamental principle. The difference is one of degree.

If, on the other hand, a person approves of the McCain notion of content-based restriction of advertising before elections, they are not reasonable. They are either a fool (unable to understand plain English) or a villain (capable of understanding, but choosing to support evil anyway). The difference here is one of kind. The whole point of the protecting free speech is allowing non-government-approved political views to be aired. Undermining that purpose is not something a reasonable person can countenance.

[HitmanLV]

The first amendment says 'Congress shall make no law..."

Where are the gradations of degree within 'no law?' "No law" means "no law," unless "no law" doesn't mean "no law." Indeed, reasonable people have reasonably disagreed as to what exactly this means. that doesn't make either (or both) sides stupid, necessarily.