Yes there are. The First Amendment is limited by compelling government interest, which (in practice) means it can be fairly arbitrarily by SCOTUS.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/what-the-first-amendmen...

The SCOTUS opinion does not rely on a national security interest to justify itself, merely that the ban is content neutral and thus is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

What does intermediate scrutiny mean?

This is an especially superficial take, sure the Constitution says nothing about national security but reality sure does...

Any person that has ever gotten a security clearance has given up some of their first amendment rights to do it and if they talk about the wrong thing to the wrong person they will absolutely go to jail.

And as always the classic example of free speech being limited still stands. Go yell FIRE in a crowded movie and see how your dumbass 1st amendment argument keeps you out of jail.

Bit of a non-sequitor here but the classic example of yelling 'Fire' in a theater has me thinking about public safety. Obviously there have been many crowd-crush related injuries and fatalities throughout history. But we've also come a long way since the 1800's or 1900's with fire drills, emergency exits, etc.

It almost seems like any hazard or danger from a false alarm (intentional or otherwise) should be the liability of the owners or operators of a property for unsafe infrastructure or improper safety briefing.

Anyway, I don't expect that to appear as a major legal issue, given this is primarily used as a rhetorical example.