Freedom of Speech - With or Without Restraints?

About a week ago, a friend gave me a line I'd heard several times before.  "The freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want."  This may sound so illogical as to not even make sense, but I got his point.  You can't say something that is going to hurt anyone, etc.  It's the same old argument as to say "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre."  This is correct up to an extent, however the logic is flawed.

In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court struck a blow against free speech, one I think all contributors to this site would disagree with.  However, in the ruling, the concept of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was mentioned.  The argument was that one should not legally be allowed to do this.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  Legally, this is the freedom of speech and you should be able to say whatever you want.  Where I do think this issue comes into play is in property rights.  If I was the owner of a movie theater, and someone said this, I would kick them out.  Because they are voluntarily on my property, I have the right to kick them out for any reason.  They must understand this in coming on my property and buying a ticket.

Freedom of speech alone can hurt nothing but a person's feelings.  If someone makes a death threat, that isn't good, and they should be watched, but they can say whatever they want.  If they never act on that, no crime has been done.  The second they take action and actually commit a crime, I support taking full action against them.  But free speech in itself is no crime.  The far worse crime is not allowing free speech.  As Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."