The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'.
The original and best canard that is always invoked by those that wish to suppress the "free" in "free speech"
1. Theatres are private property. Free speech does not apply on private property, the proprietor may rightfully eject anyone they deem toI could stop there, because that's the literal No.1 killer blow to this statist idiocy, but I love deconstructing this nonsense non-argument
The patrons of any theatre have common sense on their side if someone were to falsely shout "fire"
2. Theater's are dark, on account of their evening schedule. Even with the lights up they are difficult to keep well lit, as theatres are typically rather spacious. Fires are highly visible in dark places, because of how bright they are in contrast to the darkness.
3. The dulling of one sense (i.e absence of light in the theater) tends to enhance the perception of other senses. Other patrons may well smell the smoke before a fire becomes visible enough to see.
There are no limits to free speech. The "shouting fire in a crowded space argument" argument doesn't cut it. If danger to others were justification for limiting free-speech, censoring the blocksize debate would have been accepted a long, long time ago (although false accusations of censoring that debate are still used as anti-Bitcointalk propaganda even today)