Not sure if this answers your question but some possible examples:
- corporate insiders have "freedom of speech" restricted in the sense that they can be punished for "manipulating stock price". E.g. Elon Musk tweets: https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+tweets+accussed+manipula...
- book authors writing fiction getting sued for libel/slander so some writers creatively get around it with the "small penis" rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule
But the reasoning of this case indicates that a message sent by a high school student who has a million followers on twitter could be regulated by a school, even if that same message would not have been allowed to be regulated if sent by someone with 5 followers. This is because the large number of followers increases the likelihood of a "substantial disruption" (a term of art from prior cases).
An interesting question: what if someone with 5 followers sends a tweet, which is then picked up and RT'd by someone with a million followers? Should the school be able to regulate the original message (i.e., punish the student) simply because someone with a large following agreed with them? Presumably they couldn't punish the student before the RT, but what about after?
Second case is of government putting those restrictions on you. Can public school put such restrictions on students ? I do not know and I am not familiar with this case.
The cynic in me think he might have his own brand of flavored water to launch.
You are confusing "free speech" and "the First Amendment". Free speech has nothing to do with government; it's a generally applicable concept. The First Amendment specifies a requirement for the government to respect freedom of speech. That wouldn't even make sense if freedom of speech weren't a general concept.
Free speech as a general concept is irrelevant in the eyes of law unless you have some specific law governing the specific scenarios. (Employees being punished for how they voted in general election.)
Free speech could be a virtue but it is a virtue like "not lying". It is perfectly legal to lie in many circumstances.
I was responding to the claim "Free speech is always about freedom from government control", emphasis mine. Where did "in the eyes of law" come from? How is this contributing to the conversation?
It's okay to just admit that someone else's clarification was helpful and move on. You don't have to add irrelevant, non-clarifying addenda in order to seem like the more knowledgeable party.
> Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.