Question

understanding the dissent
in its past decisions, the supreme court has reminded us that there are \categories of speech... fully outside the protection of the first amendment\ (united states v. stevens, 2010). the first amendment has always permitted restrictions on speech.
what is the main idea of this passage?
lies are a necessary part of communication.
for six decades, the supreme court ruled that lies are protected speech.
according to past decisions, free speech is not unlimited.
lies are not protected speech because they have no social value.

Explanation:

The passage states that the Supreme Court has said there are speech categories not protected by the First Amendment and that the First Amendment allows speech restrictions. This implies free speech isn't unlimited. The first option about lies being a necessary communication part isn't in the passage. The second option about six decades is wrong as the passage doesn't mention that time frame. The fourth option about lies having no social value isn't in the passage.

Answer:

According to past decisions, free speech is not unlimited.