Tangentially invoking a hot-button issue like the first amendment is at best a tactical error in that it distracts from your actual point. In this case, your analogy is flat wrong because the first amendment actually does have lots of grey area (I mean, you can choose not to recognize the USSC's interpretation as valid, but it won't help). In response to your underlying argument about special cases being bad: tough. We don't have a choice. A finite policy can only ever be an approximation to justice.