[This question disappeared for awhile and then it reappeared. Don't know why. A question was asked regarding the scope of rules I'm looking for -- purely legal? In as much as I can't come up with a decent example of social rules going very far (e.g. "shouldn't commit adultery -- it's ok, we're in an open marriage -- but my wife really hates her") and the fact that when we look to enforce the rules it ends up at some point calling the cops, my suspicion is that this will end up devolving to legal situations. If we consider the motives for bureaucrats to create a sinkhole of crafty rules and lawyers aiding and abetting, the rest of us who have to actually work for a living don't stand a chance of competing.]

There is a tension between our expectation that we ought to be freely able to express ourselves and the desire to see people who support bad social movements to receive the karma they deserve. Our sense of fairness runs deep.

So while we cherish our 1st Amendment privilege that prohibits the government from muzzling us in all but extreme cases, we're also apt to smile (ok. not you, but the rest of us) when the Nazi dude loses his job, because no one likes Nazis. Let him march but "words have consequences".

And that's all well and good until we lose our job due to some "snowflake" who "can't handle facts" puts a video on facebook or twitter capturing us at our not-so-best.

So we sue, because...it's just not fair. Or because we have a clause in our employment contract which protects our expression.

In considering this tension between permission and prohibition, it appears the tension creates a demand for nested sets, defined by application of principles that alternate between permission and prohibition in the encapsulations.

Consider an example where Bob, below, finds himself plinko'd down a cascade of principles that ends up with his termination.

We have a series of concentric circles, [expressing a universe of 'committable actions'] from outermost in, reflecting the principles at issue

Outer Circle. (Permission)
Skokie Bob is permitted to march and chant his Nazi slogans due to the 1st Amendment.

2nd Circle. (Prohibition)
Bob's employer fires Bob claiming that Bob's actions impacts the brand and their right to association insulates them. The implication is that Bob can be prohibited from voicing public support for Nazis.

3rd Circle. (Permission)
Bob sues, claiming that the contractual agreement with his employee includes a clause that supports the free expression of the employee and restrains the company from firing on that basis. Bob says as long as his expression is legal, he can't be fired.

4th Circle (Prohibition)
The company's lawyers recognize the free expression clause but also point out the exception to the clause, the Nobody Likes Nazis clause that insulates the company actions taken against an employee whose expression supports the Nazi cause. Company wins.

The 4th circle is kinda crap, but it is not without precedent. In the McAdams case against Marquette, news points out an exception to an academic expression clause, excluding conduct which ‘clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness to serve’.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/07/09/wisconsin-supreme-court-says-marquette-must-reinstate-professor-it-wanted-fire

Also, note that in the outer circle, while the 1st Amendment doesn't itself insulate against employee action (unless he works for the government), it does protect Bob against muzzling by the state, so it works.

A second example with gun rights:
1. 2nd Amendment right prevents government infringing on our right to keep and bear arms (Permission).
2. If you're a convicted felon, however, that right no longer protects you and your 2nd Amendment right may be curtailed (Prohibition).
3. A felon, using a downed officers gun to protect the officer, may find the violation ignored at the discretion of the DA (Permission).
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-a-convicted-felon-picked-up-a-downed-officer-s-gun-to-defend-him-Would-his-act-of-service-outweigh-the-gun-crime-that-he-committed-while-helping-or-would-he-get-a-thank-you-now-turn-around-and

To the question:
How far does the rabbit hole go?

In the mind of the island/lake switchback
https://www.livescience.com/33679-world-largest-island-lake-island-lake-island-google-earth.html

How many layers can be found in practice in permission/prohibition nested shells?

Ground rules:
1. Make it nominally realistic. Actual court cites would be best, but hypotheticals that don't insult our intelligence are ok.

2. The application of the principles need to be legitimately restrictive. If I cry 'Fire' in a theater because I know there's a bomb and it's the fastest way to empty the theater, someone might plausibly(?) claim justification. But if the police investigate and find I was lying about the bomb, sure my permission suitably encapsulates a nested prohibition (I get arrested), but only because the permission due to save others lives was a lie.

3. In thinking about this, I realize that this boils down to a line of arguments and counter arguments, each but the first, beginning "acknowledged, except that..."

In looking to or imagining case law, let's make sure that we don't try to create artificial shells by taking legitimately applied principles and feather in switchbacks using concocted justifications. I don't have anything more concrete on this one, other than it might be easy to take a 4 shell approach (like the Bob example above) and make it 6 or 8 by insert a contrived switchback between 2 shells.