Nah, just didn't go back...
I spent most of the time in that post on reading the cite and trying to catch all the extraneous <CR>s in the post (I see I still missed at least 1).
I didn't read my comment at the beginning closely enough. I thought it was assumed to be implicit in the statement (after all, if there is a fire...), but one should be explicit when one is trying to argue about possible restrictions on speech.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.