The first amendment provides you with the opportunity to say "almost" anything you want. You may not shout fire in a crowded theater, you may not use inflamatory rhetoric against specific groups of people and you may not stand up and disrupt the State of the Union message with your protest, etc.
You are correct, but it is not the speech in those cases that is punished in the law. In the case of shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example, it is the intentional, negligent, or reckless instigating of a wild stampede for the door, whether in a crowded theater, or anywhere else, that is a violation of the law, whether one does this with one's voice, or otherwise.
One is not permitted to use his speech as a weapon against the innocent anymore than, say, he is permitted, because of the right to keep and bear arms, to use his handgun to commit the crime of armed robbery. If, for example, I walked up to you, a store clerk (let's say in Alaska or Vermont), opened my jacket to reveal a revolver in my waistband, and simply and calmly stated, "I would like you to place the contents of that cash register in this sack please, and I would appreciate it if you'd make it quick because I'm in a real hurry," I am not, first and foremost, exercising either the right to speech or the right to keep and bear arms, even though I am incidentally doing both of those things. I am, first and foremost, committing the crime of armed robbery, while I happen also to be doing those other things. The fact that, while committing said crime, I was speaking and bearing arms - things that I have a perfect right to do - does not insulate me from the fact that I was also simultaneously committing a crime. It's the crime that is punished, not the speech, and not the carrying of arms.
As for dsrupting the State of the Union Address, again, the speech is not the crime. The crime is disrupting the use of facilities paid for by others. In the case of the ex CIA employee in the starting post, he was using a microphone provided for him by the man on the stage and his employees. The right to speak freely does not also establish the obligation on the part of others to provide a microphone and sound system to amplify your speech. He had a perfect right to ask him to stop using the microphone at any time he chose. No right was violated here that I can see.
