Freedom of speech is earned by the level of responsibility of citizens. When we are irresponsible in our speech, by inciting violence for example, we cause its loss. When we are restrained in our choice of words of condemnation, there is no need for courts to restrict free speech.

“Integrity has no need of rules.” - Albert Camus.

It has come to roost here as well. Hate speech is defined as anything negative directed towards blacks, homosexuals, transgenders, leftist ideals. Even if your reporting facts. To say " blacks murder more blacks than police," can be construed as racist.

Speech is already censored, try taking a conservative point of view in any college or high school class room and see what happens!!!!!!

I think there is a lot of ways that freedom of speech can go too far. But instead of waiting for it to go too far, we should instead set healthy standards that will make sure that we keep discussions civil and sensible

"Speech" should have limits in so far as it does not break our common laws such as knowingly making false accusations, blatant lies, or harmful misrepresentations against persons.
"Free-Speech" should have NO LIMITS!!!

Speech should have no limits. In every example in which limits should be applied, a crime already exists independent of the act of speech.

For instance, raising a false alarm (the most frequently cited example of speech which should be limited) is already covered under the crime of inducing panic. In this example, the act of speech (i.e., falsely crying fire in a crowded theater) is inextricable from the crime itself, much like libel / slander.

As for incitement to violence, no one's forcing the audience to commit violence. The crime is in the violence itself, not in the incitement. Perhaps the audience wouldn't have engaged in violence without the incitement, but ultimately the responsibility for action is on the actor, not the speaker.

As for restrictions on "fake news" and even deliberately spread lies, truth is rarely fully known by everyone at once, that is why we debate ... to determine what is true. Given no one can be absolutely certain of the validity of their opinions, we have to tolerate speech we consider untrue because we can't be absolutely certain we're right. In this example, a better argument and/or the natural negative consequences of believing a falsehood will eliminate untrue opinions without the need for censorship.

I think the right judge speech by how it conforms to the status quo and the left judge speech by how it conforms to their perception of righteousness. For me, that means the conservatives approve speech that keeps power and money in the same hands and the liberals approve a kind of quasi-Christian version of socialism. There isn't much pretense of morality on the right side but the left see their morality as almost God-given, in the sense that they feel they can judge people who don't agree with them as morally reprehensible.

I'm thinking particularly about the evil people who talk or bully the vulnerable into suicide

Treason should not be covered and should still be punishable by death. That solves the issue with the far left.

Our Freedoms define us as a nation. America is unique in the world. We are the only true melting pot. Problem is, some of us refuse to melt, and others exploit them, to create hate and divide us for political purposes.
The vast (silent) majority live and let live.
Paid groups of rabble rousers, and biased media, create nothing good. They incite riots in which people die and property is damaged.
I believe that partisan politics has had its day. Lawyers, and media, think tanks and evil billionaires, have found ways to corrupt the systems Of checks and balances that permitted political discourse without violence.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Too much money in too few hands imbalances the scales. We The people are supposed to be the recipients of good governance.
We must put our heads together and find better ways to select our leaders. Term limits are a good beginning.
Get rid of professional politicians and the entrenched oligarchy, that Eventually brings every political system down.
Short of putting limits on free speech, there has to be a way to get the money and hate out of politics and media.
The internet and especially social media has put ordinary people like us in the fray.
Legislators and statesmen have always done our debating for us. The majority were moderate and worked for the general good.
We were better off when we weren’t so directly involved.
Extremists don’t really work for anyone.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, yes. You also can't tell someone you're going to beat their ass, or that you're going to kill them. Freedom of speech is assured, so long as there's no threat of bodily harm. I believe that would be the only exception.

To this I say there is a massive differences between the liberty to say anything, what restraint that any present moment situation calls for, then there is the sense to know not only what, but what NOT to say.

Unsafely cause panic or incitement to harm should be observed I think other then that all can be said.
I'd rather know what someone's thinking then it going underground and becoming a issue later tbh.

It would not hurt to have good manners but well mannered gentlemen shot each other in duels in the past.

Part of having good manners has to be resisting taking offense. If it is just a matter of not giving offense we all have to be mind readers. Even if offense is intentional you still have to discern the motivations. Even if the motivations are just hatred it does you no good to take offense. The law as it exists is sufficient for practical consideratios.

How the tables have turned.