What if any limits should be placed on freedom of speech?
It has been well established you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater and claim free speech (that isn't actually on fire). So free speech is limited when it may physically injury others such as in the "FIRE" example.
What other limits are acceptable?
"And with the executive branch's power in this equation, *they* pick the judges."
And afterwards they are vetted thru the hearing process and are given an Up or Down vote. But the judges are there for the rest of their lives (that's why there are 9.)
There are many recognised limits on freedom of speech some of which are recognised in law and some by convention. The real question should be 'on what basis can free speech be limited?'
If the basis of a proposed limit is that the intended speech is objectionable then this is problematic.
The first and most readily apparent problem for any constraint based on objectionability is that the criteria is subjective. Any criteria that is subjective makes for a rule that is difficult to apply.
The second and more important is the notion of the veil of ignorance. Would you appreciate having your thoughts and beliefs (genuinely held or otherwise) suppressed because someone else objected to them? Think twice before you shut down Milo as it may be you hiding your thoughts and beliefs one day.
This is what makes blasphemy laws (which do exist) around the world so insidious. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-an
David thanks for the link...
All i can say is WOW... and damn I am scared being arguably blasphemous by just being an atheist......