Freedom of speech is "freedom" to speak about things that you love, worship, hate, and express your opinions on politics, marriage, religion, etc. However, these freedoms have become entangled in a web of deception. When far-left PACs like Defeat Disinfo use military grade AI to manipulate and control the main stream media content and wage social media attacks to silence your voice. We no longer live in a society of free speech, as long as they control the narrative and control your ability to speak.

The limits on speech are well established: incitement of violence, slander or libel. Anything beyond that is unrestricted. Americans, do not let the hard left chip away at your right to speech, as has already happened in Canada.

The standard in Canada is not incitement of violence, but incitement of “hatred”. If a court determines your speech is “hateful” you could go to jail. And realistically, a good attorney could argue that virtually anything is hateful.

“Under section 319(1), everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence.”

[lop.parl.ca]

Years ago, Al Sharpton led a protest over white-owned businesses in Harlem, where he spoke forcefully through his megaphone against “white interlopers.” Later, after Sharpton was long gone, a mob burned the store down and someone died. The debate still rages among those who still remember if Sharpton was guilty of inciting violence.

Seeking a clear definition of incitement would open up endless legal slicing and dicing, but if there is a line to be drawn, that’s where it should be. Anything else becomes the kind of cancelling censorship that characterizes the left.

No kidding, I get sick of some of the crap I read here. But aside from annoying me, it does no damage. I think ideas need to stand or fall on their own merits, without any helpful regulation greasing the skids.

I will return to answer more fully but this question; ”How about what is taught to our kids?” Should be more of a topic of its own.
I don’t believe a teacher has the “Right” of “Freedom of Speech” during working hours or, at least, it should be considered strictly limited.
Activism of any sort ... specifically not part of the curriculum being taught ... has no place in K-12 schooling.

When someone makes threats to harm or want to harm the welfare of another, I draw the line on free speech. Aside from threats of personal harm or slander (which is illegal), someone should be free to express their views regardless if their opinions be popular or not. Yes, at least some of those from the progressive left should face censorship when groups they back such as BLM or ANTIFA make threats of harm towards innocent people. ANTIFA in particular has made good on at least some of their threats of violence, and BLM isn't far behind them.

Freedom of speech is required to be able to have discourse and development as a society. It is only through free speech that you can drag the ideologies that are destructive to society and man, out into the open and show their full and complete colors. It is why for the last 30 plus years there has been a slow but sure suppressing of free speech on college campuses and within the teaching unions of the US and Globally. Only by demanding and artificial conformity do false and destructive ideologies flourish.

Does that mean we must have a bit of a thick skin and be mature in our dealings even when it truly does offend? Yes we do. Does it mean we must tolerate those who use speech to justify their physical violence against others or their "right" to decide "who" can speak. No that way lays madness and those who that agenda need to be dealt with as a truly civilized society does. While dueling is in many views considered barbaric it did tend to cause many to pause before uttering that which they knew was utter falsehood meant to inflame or incite as they could find themselves out beneath the old oak tree and not be the one walking away.

Free speech is needed to allow growth of both persons and society.

On the other hand free speech does not protect anyone from dealing with the cost of that speech. If you choose to use that natural freedom to incite revolt and riot, to destroy the lives of others with intent, do not be surprised when your physical actions bring extremely high price tags. It is the actual action that is the issue not the speech.

There has been those who will seek to blame others and those who wish to control others. Only in a society that values freedom of speech while also demanding that the individual be accountable of your actions can that grow and develop. What we are seeing on the left and in other groups is the abuse of one while refusing to accept the price tag of the other.

There are too many variables to answer this one concisely. Does speech really incite violence, or does it simply motivate a heart that is already filled with hatred? And what do you mean by speech that is wrong? That can be purely subjective.

Freedom of speech isn't the same a zero censorship. The problem as I see it is pretty simple...certain parties want to limit free speech so their world view rules. We all know what's going on.

Once you start limiting speech for some you make speech for others more powerful and then you have unequal speech...kinda like what we have now.

I like the classical legally accepted 1st Amendment speech in the US. I recommend this link, which lists several things which have been found to be within and outside the legal bounds. [uscourts.gov]

I think these bounds could be improved, and I think additional guarantees against privately compelled and restricted speech should exist. I believe, if the eventual power of private institutions and organizations to restrict our speech at the time of the founding had been understood, a further guarantee against private economic compulsion or restriction of speech might have at least been implied. For example, when a company fires an employee for something they say or said on their own time, that's wrong, and should be addressed somehow. But that ship has sailed, and I don't know how we could do better than just try to keep the guarantees we already have.

And that will be hard. Very hard. I think we've already lost some. Our culture has already shifted to value safety over liberty. Two generations of children have been raised to believe 'hate' can be defined and isn't covered by the 1st amendment. And hatred is being re-defined, much like racism already has been, to only apply unidirectionally through the oppressor-oppression hierarchy towards the protected classes.

And it gets worse; they're being conditioned to believe that 'factualness' can be universally defined and speaking an opinion that doens't meet this universal definition of 'fact' isn't, or at least shouldn't be, covered either.

The Progressive Left can't lie straight in bed and should be continually corrected in the media and shown up to be the dishonest liars that they are.

it is almost as if all the editing of speech is being driven by the rules governing satire, with all of the misinformation that is fed on a perpetual basis. treated as fact and used as leverage through an elaborate, exploitable complaint batting cage, while actual satirists and reporters ,dedicated to accuracy and truth, are fed to the sharks and the infernos of burned truths. it is as if we are fish in the tank, swimming against the edges of the glass, hoping, wondering to get a glimpse of the food jar. schools focus on the emotional expressions of children, catering to fantasy and fiction throughout school and into adulthood. little being valued on the stem books. libraries across the country overflow with fiction, drowning out the space for the non fiction sections. librarians cater to request and end up culling valuable knowleges and solutions for space for comics and mysteries

"It may seem reasonable to think academic diversity and open debate can counter progressive groupthink, but the intolerance prevailing on college campuses isn’t the result of too little speech. It’s a consequence of too much speech."

Aside from what the current law states, I think the freedom speech shouldn't have any limits.

Cancel culture has reached a fairly high peak of extremism and influences have a quite a bit of power over how people and companies are handled online. The real world consequences to their actions are often not noticed on left leaning social media sites. They are, however, now affecting more of the average "offline" citizen, and that's bringing some pretty bad backlash.

There are quite a lot of people of varying political views that aren't extremists. Mr. Average just want to watch a comedian or sport, read the news on occasion, go to work, post a few vacation pics on facebook, and take care of his family. 2020 has changed this dramatically. It's also put cancel culture in a whole new light.

Mr. Average now is being censored on facebook for either posting an article or an opinion on events, one of his favorite celebrities is saying he's "less than" for being white, a talk show host is telling him all about his "whiteness", his sports team is fully endorsing a movement that burned down his buisness, he gets a bull horn in his face while going to a resturant... He's constantly being told what to say, how to think, and is realizing that he himself is being canceled.

I'm unsure how much further the censorship will go online. I don't even know how much further it will continue in the real world. I don't think it can be fought, though, with more censorship.

The pen is mightier than the sword. The sword fights the battle, the pen starts and ends the war. Main stream media and education centers should be held to very high account.

When Chris Cuomo suggests no where in the constitution does it say protests have to be peaceful and then we see 100 straight days of riots and 35 people dead and counting...

First:
Crowded Theater Phenomenon

Data or fists, knives, bullets, bombs, poisons, and lies flowing from individual to individual is easily classified into 3 distinct, separate, and conflicting/opposing categories:

1. Offensive (I do to you what I won't allow you to do to me) = immoral
2. Defensive (I only do to you what I want you to do to me) = moral
3. Neutral (who cares, none of anyone's business, according to them) = amoral

The first so-called amendment (a.k.a. free speech) is a right to publish facts that matter in a case where criminals have taken over the defensive government.

That is 2 above.

That is defensive.

That is moral.

That is supported by evidence such as:

"Hallam says, “The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king’s authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom.” - 3 Middle Ages, 240-2." Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

Exhibit A: "... if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to..."

Next is taken from The First Congress of the United States of America during the deliberation (what jurors do) considering the publication of a Declaration of Independence:

"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:
That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:"

Exhibit B: "Declaration of Independence."

Next are 2 additional sourced confirmations of the defensive phenomenon in which it is a natural right to exchange factual data exposing criminal activity on the part of those who claim to be the government, while they demonstrate that instead they are the criminals in fact:

Bonding Code:

"When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

The Commercial Lean Right and the Military Lean Right:

"In American history, the Declaration of Independence served the legal purpose of making a Solemn Recognition of Mixed War, which is a Notice of Military Lien Right, a warning of No Trespass, an assertion that any killing or taking of human life necessary for the protection of the legal remedies of the common citizen is being done, in the immediate situation described in the Solemn Recognition or Notice, not as murder, but as lethal self-defense of the commercial and social remedy against the cited domestic enemy or enemies. The Declaration of Independence is the legal model or format for the construction of the Solemn Recognition of Mixed War and the Notice of Military Lien Right."

Exhibit C: "Solemn Notice of Mixed War"

Next is a current activity placed in the lap of anyone wanting to know this exhibit, there are examples to find, if you are curious:

Exhibit D: "Notice of Liability" (Hint: do not vaccinate me, if you do you confess your criminality)

Second:
"How about what is taught to our kids?"

I learned on my own, my parents didn't get in the way. I learned early that Public School was false propaganda. That early understanding has since been confirmed.

Example:

"The Six Purposes of Schooling" - John Taylor Gatto

“Now you are ready to hear the six purposes of modern schooling taken directly from Dr. Anglisse’s book.”

“The first function of schooling is adjustive. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. It is fixed habits of reaction. Notice that this precludes critical judgment completely. Notice too that requiring obedience to stupid orders is a much better test of function one than following sensible orders ever could be. You don’t know whether people are reflexibly obedient unless they will march right off the cliff.”

“How can you establish weather someone has successfully developed this automatic reaction, because people have a proclivity when they are given sensible orders to follow? That is not what they want to reach. The only way to measure this is to give stupid orders, and people automatically follow those. Now you have achieved function one.”

Some people might be inspired to find out what the other 5 Purposes are according to the "teachers."

Third:

"What do you think?"

I think I will check out the link and "the left" can't be held to account, nor can "the left" be censored, because "the left" is a fiction. The "legal fiction" deception is based upon all the other forms of deception, as people are made to look in the wrong place, the criminals get away with whichever crimes they are, were, or will perpetrate during that deception.

Actual people who are perpetrating very harmful deceptions need a court date before The People (a jury) in a Court of Law (common law) to state their case as to why they are deceiving people, and those jurors (representing The People) are duty bound to adjudicate that case against that accused member of "the left" or right or whichever legal fiction that individual is a member of while they propagated obvious deception.

To who is it obvious deception? The deceived are not privy to the obvious deception, a fact that matters.

The example of shouting fire in a crowded theater is not considered speech, it is instead a direct call to action which is already punishable under the law.

I don't believe it is possible to define when "speech goes to far". It's a subjective thing. We have had legislation to protect us from "hate speech", but who gets to define "hate"

NEVER leave that definition to the law: once a benchmark is set, lawyers will explore the edges of what is acceptable and what is not, and, via precedent, come to legal conclusions that are diametrically opposite to the intent of the original legislation.

If we can define what is acceptable speech for leftists, they can certainly define what is acceptable for us (and they already have). The best solution is to let everyone talk. Freely.

Cancel culture is trying hard to shackle and reshape society - but it can only happen if we let it. Soviet dictatorships relied on the public's willingness to self censor and turn in their neighbours...the actions and speech of the accused did not matter in the slightest; the accusation was sufficient in and of itself.

The danger lies not in what people say, but in the belief that a person's spoken beliefs, if out of step with the herd, constitute a threat that needs to be removed. Speech by itself is so much hot air: our willingness to act or react to it is the danger.

Here is my take. speech should have no limits. However, having said that. you should be able to say what you want but if it causes something to happen you should have some liability for that to happen. For example, lets take the yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do not think it should be illegal. I think if you do it and people panic and some gets injured or dies you should be held liable. however, if people look at you like you are a idiot then you have done nothing wrong. We see this a little bit when it comes to slander. for it to truly be slander there must be "injury". I can go around an sad bad things about people all day but unless that creates a "injury" for someone that is not slander. Now how you define "injury" is a whole other ball of wax. The concept of pre-emptive crimes i find to be rather anti freedom. But again that is just me.

There shouldn't be any limits. But "incitement to violence" should be criminal. Let the Jury do their job !

Freedom of speech is gone in the US plain and simple

Incitement of violence
Reasonable loss of life or damage to property.

Other then that its free game.

It doesn't matter what we want Freedom of Speech to mean. It's going to mean you can't say anything that people with power, public or private, decide is not true.

In the private sector, they will hide behind their political cover, and tell you you are free to stay off their platforms if you don't like it. If you find a platform, like this one, they'll push it off servers and deny it access to basic mechanisms of finance; and in the long run, browsers will just refuse to render pages, and operating systems won't run unapproved browsers. In politics, their administrators will use non-judicial actions to punish you for straying. You'll be audited; you'll have regulatory problems, you'll lose custody of your children. Further, they're very good at finding judges who read the plain language of the constitution to mean what they want it to mean.

We can't hide behind our thin pieces of paper.

I am a fanatical FOS person. It’s not a free country if u are limited in any way. There’s only 2 exceptions in my book:

1. Directly inciting violence
2. Defamation (unless it’s true!).
   >> you should be censored if you are lying to defame someone (and there’s solid proof it’s a lie)

But as far as kids: shit, Christians are allowed to brainwash (and scare the fuck outta them) en masse! Christians teach kids that one day the world is gonna end and some will burn eternally!!
>>>. And they’re worried about them hearing free speech ?!

This shows the advantage of case law, if something incites violence then there must be history of it doing so. This is why in part hate laws are so malevolent, they have no standard to go by and go for the lowest, ie pug dogs giving nazi salutes.

Obviously there are some limits otherwise if someone wants you dead for whatever reason and issues death threats and "I know where you live" type messages, then the police wouldn't be able to do anything, because they'd be allowed to say that.

So yeah... I suppose that as long as what you say has some sort of factual basis behind it, and not an unfounded opinion, then screw the controversy-- go nuts with what you want to say.