Is more speech always good?

Dan Gillmor's Bayosphere looks like it's gathering steam.  Talking with Dan about legal issues raised by the site really got my mind realing.  Now that I'm back from vacation, it's time to get moving on some answers.  What happens to free speech when anyone's civic voice can be amplified by the web.  I first confronted this question 10 years ago when I got my first cyberpolicy gig.  Then the Communications Decency Act was the target and Reno v. ACLU established that the First Amendment would apply online.  Five years ago when I was at EFF the hot issue was anonymous message board posters and whether their identity could be subpoena'd without meeting some standard establishing that there was a real controversy and no other way to get the information.  Two years ago the Supreme Court found that the first amendment does not protect your right to say things that have been copyrighted (almost) perpetually in Eldred v. ACLU.  Today, a hot topic is citizen journalism and when anonymous sources should be revealed in the face of a purported trade secret disclosure.  I think there will be even more assaults on speech now that the full read/write potential of the web is realized.  The tradition of "more speech is always good" will confront its greatest challenges.  I'm not sure the outcome but that's what I'm thinking about these days.