"The First Amendment Is a Value-Free Provision"

I came across that, to me, strange sounding and discomfiting statement, from Meyer v. Grant, a 1988 decision, while reading the Ninth Circuit's various opinions denying rehearing en banc in United States v. Alvarez, a case in which the panel ruled that the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalizes knowing lies about whether one has received military honors, violates the freedom of speech.  The opinions are here. (Thanks to George Wright for kindly calling the case to my attention).

I have more knowledge about the Religion Clauses than the Free Speech Clause, but I am slowly trying to learn.  Still, I cannot imagine that anyone would say that the Religion Clauses are "value-free provisions," and I can't recall that sort of statement ever being made by any court (can you, good readers?).  Questions for speech mavens: is it really true that the Speech Clause is value-free?  If so, in what way?  As a matter of the substance of the speech only, or more than just that? 

UPDATE: I chased down Meyer v. Grant, and it looks like the Court cited with approval the "value-free" language, but the phrase itself was drawn from the 10th Circuit opinion.  Thanks again to Prof. Wright.