Freedom of Speech

I was watching a Sky News broadcast from England last night when I saw a spectacle that amazed me. There, live on camera, were a famous British film director and the daughter of a very wealthy English family, telling the world that the sexual misconduct allegations about Julian Assange were irrevalent, that what mattered was his freedom of speech.
It's not that I'm opposed to freedom of speech. It is one of the great freedoms fought for and won over the past 200 years. Freedom of speech even protects, as it should, flag burners, protesters unless they damage property, those who like to insult famous people, and a host of other acts that most of us would never consider indulging in ourselves.
But, these two celebrities casting aside moral issues in the name of freedom of speech baffled me, much in the same way I was baffled by French celebrities trying to cast aside moral issues and due process of law when Roman Polanski was detained in Switzerland last year until the United States could make its case for extradition. The arguments of the celebrities were, broadly, that Polanski was a creative genius who should be allowed to continue his work instead of answering for his past behavior. The charges there were more than suspicions because Polanski had been tried and convicted of sexual misconduct in the US. Finally, after due process of law, Polanski was released by the Swiss authorities because the United States failed to make it case.
But, here we have someone who was hiding from the Swedish authorities for several weeks after they announced that they would proceed with an investigation into allegations that Assange had either raped or sexually assaulted two young women.
I make no judgments. But, I do find it strange that twice in 18 months, celebrities have felt it necessary to say that freedom of speech is more important than the law and the alleged or proven sexual abuse of young women.
Something vitally important has been misunderstood by those making these arguments. Freedom of speech is one among many freedoms modern citizens of democratic states possess. It is not supreme, although it often takes precedence over other freedoms or laws. But it has limits. If you are a lawyer, you remember the law school question : "Does anyone have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre?" The answer is "No" unless there actually is a fire. Does freedom of speech protect anyone from facing a legal procedure because he or she is engaged in other activities that might be protected by freedom of speech? The answer is almost always "No."
Is Assange's activity of revealing diplomatic secrets one that should override his need to answer to the Swedish legal system concerning the possible criminal violation of other people's right not to be physically assaulted? You decide for yourself. For me, the answer is simple.