But perhaps the disctinction between freedom of speech and freedom of the press is greater in the US. I’m not sure it matters here whether you say it publicly, or write and publish it, other than that slander laws apply to speech and libel to writing.

We can agree that free speech has limits. But you aren’t making the distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In the First Amendment to the U.S. Consitutiton, there are 5 tenants: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and right to petition the government for redress of greviances.

I consider myself most fortunate to live in the U.S. and have the full ability to these rights, which I find are better and more realistic than in Canada and the U.S. I do remember when Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon were successful in having some kinds of pornography banned in Canada for getting that deemed as hate speech, only to have the lesbian porn shops and strip clubs hit the hardest by the law. All in the name of protecting the historically oppressed and disadvantaged, which has shown to backfire.

And in the U.S., hate crimes also apply to targeting white males, too.

The example of terrorist threatening was yours. My example was hate crime laws, i.e., public statements or publications which are negative toward certain societal groups and which might be reasonably expected to incite hatred toward that group. The person making the statement or publishing the comment does not have to have any intent to commit actions against that group, but it is still illegal if it is deemed to be likely to incite hatred toward that group, whether or not it actually results in physical crimes against that group.

Of course, I’m referring to Canadian law. How that may be interpreted in the US, UK, or elsewhere may be different.

But it doesn’t matter, since the principle I am trying to cite is a societal recognition of limits to free speech and limits to the press. Such limits exist, I think, in all nations, to one degree or another. If you don’t like the example of hate crimes, consider libel laws and the like.

Again, you’re confusing speech with action, along with intent to commit such action. Just stating an opinion is not in itself an intent to commit such action.

That’s not a correction. I;m not sure it’s even a disagreement. If there are laws saying that I do not have the write to verbally state certain opinions or to publish certain opinions, that is a limitation of free speech.

And that is as it should be. As I stated above, “Freedom of speech does not and should not convey absolute or unlimited freedom…. And defending such freedoms is not compromised by recognizing that those freedoms do have limits.”