The United States already draws a line between speech protected by the First Amendment and unprotected speech: child pornography, for example, is unprotected.

Yet this is precisely the line that in the American context separates protected from unprotected speech.

To make matters worse, the Court today extends this overstated claim to reach categories of hitherto unprotected speech and, in doing so, wreaks havoc in an area of settled law.

A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing unprotected speech, it also proscribes protected speech.

You know that the Supreme Court has a series of decisions about the speech that's in the kind of nether land between fully protected speech and unprotected speech.

In so doing, the Court created a new area of constitutionally unprotected speech for "true threats."

Instead, the court stated that the clause represented criteria to determine eligibility for the NEA grants and that an overbroad statute would restrict protected and unprotected speech.

A Michigan school custodian fired after a long history of abusive communications with administrators and his union, which sometimes included threats of violence, was found to have engaged in unprotected speech.

Brandenburg was a de facto overruling of Dennis, defining the bar for constitutionally unprotected speech to be incitement to "imminent lawless action".

In my view, our action today should only mean that the Government's permissible supervision of Internet content stops at the traditional line of unprotected speech.