Things aren't so black and white. You could argue that we should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded building, but most people agree that should be discouraged.
As for all information should be free, obviously you would have an exception to restrict the flow of your private information. And then what is considered private...
"Fire!" has nothing to do with the speech, and everything to do with the induced actions. The first amendment is also a terrible example, as it foolishly says 'congress shall make no law', and thus has little meaning to begin with. An actual example is how civilians are prohibited automatic weapons but meanwhile they're standard issue to individuals in the military. People would like to think USG is bound by logical rules and so invent complexities to cloud their understanding, but the fundamental truth is that a straightforward, simplistic reading of the Bill of Rights shows that it has little bearing on modern society.
As to copying, the problem lies in trying to restrict the flow of information between two consensual parties based on some notion of third party control. This arises from privacy (that you're trying to assert would not exist). As actual policing of private copying is impossible, we end up with selective enforcement based on bad luck or personal vendettas, which is immoral. Reality should drive the model, not vice versa.
Things aren't so black and white. You could argue that we should be allowed to yell fire in a crowded building, but most people agree that should be discouraged.
As for all information should be free, obviously you would have an exception to restrict the flow of your private information. And then what is considered private...