Some other legal restrictions on communication that aren't normally included in the "free speech" debate:
* Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks
* Slander and libel laws
* HIPAA and medical information privacy laws
* Sharing information for insider trading
* Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information
* Breaching attorney-client privilege
* Laws governing how jurors are allowed to communicate
* FCC and obscenity laws in US media
* Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal)
* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe
* US anti-boycott provisions that ban "furnishing information" about doing business with certain countries
* Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!)
There are many others. The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech, and there are lots of exceptions, some very well motivated.
These articles about "free speech is in danger" seem to be unnecessarily abstract: if you want to discuss the problems with Islam or the merits of social justice or whatever, don't argue about the way you're having the debate, just have the debate. Because our society doesn't really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway.
* Distributing pirated media/breaking copyright or trademarks
* Slander and libel laws
* HIPAA and medical information privacy laws
* Sharing information for insider trading
* Market manipulation by sharing false or misleading information
* Breaching attorney-client privilege
* Laws governing how jurors are allowed to communicate
* FCC and obscenity laws in US media
* Distribution of illegal porn (for various definitions of illegal)
* Holocaust denial laws in Canada and Europe
* US anti-boycott provisions that ban "furnishing information" about doing business with certain countries
* Military and government classified information (thanks rmc!)
There are many others. The point is we're always a bit selective about what counts as free speech, and there are lots of exceptions, some very well motivated.
These articles about "free speech is in danger" seem to be unnecessarily abstract: if you want to discuss the problems with Islam or the merits of social justice or whatever, don't argue about the way you're having the debate, just have the debate. Because our society doesn't really view free speech as a consistent principle anyway.