There is something of an exception in the law that relates to public figures, but that only means that a public figure has to prove actual malice (knowingly or intentionally publishing a false statement) in order to recover damages.

libel and slander isn't even illegal... you cant be charged and arrested for it, but you can be sued.

Libel is not necessarily a criminal offense, but it is illegal in the sense that courts recognize it as a tort, that is, a legal wrong that may be enjoined or compensation awarded. In some states it can also be a crime. For example, here is the Minnesota statute on criminal defamation:

IOW, they are clearly defined from a legal perspective as something you cannot do without facing lawfully enforceable consequences in civil court.

Seems pretty clear to me that fits the definition of illegal, or at the very least, extralegal.

Do not discuss this testimony unless in deliberations?

? When a judge issues a gag order ? ( as a result of a settlement in a business dispute with my former partner I am forbidden to discuss a long list of things with anyone other than my attorney)

?when the military censors soldiers letters or forbids reporters from revealing sensitive information during wartime?

I am asking cuz I dunno

By that, I mean legitimate, genuine concerns and not just whatever the government
decides is vital to national security.

People who disclose classified information can only be prosecuted because they signed away that part of their first amendment rights.

That's why Snowden is in Russia, while Greenwald is traveling freely.

So, on that you don't give up your first amendment rights.

space, where a stampede to escape could result in deaths and injury.

This also applies for political canvassing.

It works both ways. Director Kevin Smith made incredible fun of the Westboro Baptist church in a counter protest. (Watch Kevin Smith Burns in Hell). He also loosely based his horror movie "Red State" on them

There was a court case that said news media didn't fall under false advertising and could say anything they choose to say -- within the limits of libel. But if they lie about inflation or unemployment or gun death statistics, is that okay? Or if they falsely praise a candidate for something they didn't actually do?

and should have to issue prompt retractions when they find out it is a lie. Said retraction must be as prominent as the original story.

What practical effect would this have? Fox News Channel becomes the Foxcast Channel.

most often those rights one is willing to give up is commensurate with their interests, pro or con.

Regarding your #2, it is contradictory as written, on one hand it states it "should be legal to call for me to be murdered" and then you go on to add &quot although it should be entirely legal to campaign to have the law changed to make "being me" a capital crime, and have me put to death for it). Did you mean to type 'illegal' "to call for me to be murdered" instead of "legal"?

Also, the question isn't "in what ways should our rights be restricted?", it's "what rights should we have?".

We should not have absolute right to freedom of speech without state censure, but we should have one with only some fairly tightly-defined limits on it.

It is finding majority agreement in determining what rights should be curtailed and in what form is where I see the interests of one often conflicts with the interests of another when discussing curtailment of rights.

What constitutes a hate crime? Is it only when there is a 'body count' or is inciting others to kill but no killing occurs, at least not one that can be directly attributed to the incitement in question, also a hate crime?

Free speech has been so abused and has been twisted into something it's not. The forefathers meant it as a right to redress your gov't. It is not the right to say whatever passes thru your mind. Apparently we can't walk and chew gum at the same time anymore.

There are limits that common sense should dictate. Our society has descended into the mire but we don't have to wallow in it. With freedom comes responsibility. It's why you can't drink and drive without consequences when you get caught or speed thru a school zone. It's DANGEROUS to others.

It's why republicans can call the president a liar on a national broadcast. It's why this country is in the trouble it's in. It's why FOX can report whatever it wants true or not and Limbaugh can call women sluts. It's not the country I grew up in.

It's why we don't use the "n" or "f" word. Because there just might be some blowback from the people you are castigating and it's morally wrong. When we do things like making a racist cartoon the center of "free speech" we demean it's purpose and ourselves. When we deliberately incite those we know who are radical and will prove it over and over again then that is not free speech but reckless incitement and irresponsibility. Especially when we it's over taunting unstable people. Hate speech leads to hate crimes.

That is not the same thing as fighting for a meaningful cause like equality. Reminds me of the NRA when it screams that any kind of reasonable gun restriction will send us down a slippery slope of taking away the right have a weapon.


I keep asking myself were those lives worth it? Did anything change?

for saying so? That man uses denigrating language to enforce actual discrimination against us. Hate speech leads to hate crimes? Uganda is 43% Roman Catholic. The Bishops under Francis there engage in very ugly condemnations of LGBT people.
So the Pope needs to think about his own words and actions and those of his subordinates very hard before he says these things. I really found his comments to be opposed to the Christ's own teachings and also profoundly hypocritical. Profoundly.

freedom of expression. To have freedom of expression is not the same as the freedom to harm others, it means others can not restrict the way in which you express your ideas, nor restrict your ideas themselves.
To make the argument that theft accomplished with words being illegal has something to do with the protections for freedom of expression and communication is embarrassingly silly.
Oddly, the people who want to restrict speech also want the speech of religion to remind utterly unchecked, so their position is not consistent and the arguments they make are the stuff of 8th grade debate club.

... the 1st Amend prohibits is the government's suppression of speech and expression. It says "congress", but I think that is fairly interpreted to be all government entities.

Free speech doesn't guarantee speech free of consequences. Lies, libel, false advertising, etc. - all can have consequences if they damage someone and that someone sues you. That has nothing to do with the 1st Amend. because it's between you and another person - not the govt.

Contractual agreements to STFU are also enforceable. That's not the govt. shutting you up - it's you agreeing to shut up in exchange for something. Again, not a 1st Amend issue at all.

Following someone around is harassment. If you are prosecuted for it, you're prosecuted for the harassment. Not for the content of your speech while you do the harassment. No 1st Amend considerations.

If your libel is about the government, it's the government being harmed. Therefore it's the government who would have to sue you for libel.

If your contractual agreement is part of your security clearance, then it's the government shutting you up.

A civil or administrative claim. Not as part of a government initiative to suppress freedom of expression.

That's a criminal prosecution, and can only happen because a security clearance requires waiving some of your first amendment rights.

... enforcing a judgement. That's different from the government infringing on the right of free speech and expression.

Oh, wait a minute...

And therefore, also illegal.