Yeah, so lets examine this. Listed in that wikipedia, here are the examples of free speech not allowed: Incitement - already discussed multiple times. You cannot declare you are about to commit an illegal act (murder, rape, etc). False statements of fact - Covered under libel and slander laws, essentially fraud. You're being punished for lying or fraudulent declaration, not speaking your mind. Obscenity - The obscenity this is referring to is publications, or other "speech", but it's not really speech. It's more stuff like Hustler and Larry Flynt. Child pornography - Also not speech. You can argue that this stuff is a form of "Freedom of expression", but it's not speech as in the way "Hate Speech" is being looked at. Fighting words and offensive speech - The same thing as Incitement. No idea why it is listed twice. Threats - Check that, three times. Speech owned by others - This is copyright law, not cramping freedom of speech. It's effectively stealing. Commercial speech - This has restrictions, ie, you can't mislead consumers, etc. But it's effectively Fraud, not freedom of speech rights. None of this is really restrictive of Freedom of Speech. A lot of it is restrictive of Freedom of Expression, but that's not the same thing even if you guys want to pretend that it is.
Comparing murder to free speech now and saying there's a line drawn? Are you that desperate in your argument?
The argument is this: we can, and we do, draw lines. Curtailing some forms of speech does not mean we have "abolished" free speech. Nor will it ever mean abolishing, so long as reasonable people discuss it. But, "I want to say whatever I damn well want" is not going to fly, never has, never will. Which part of that do you not understand?
Regarding the restricted forms of "speech" in the wiki article, I didn't get to finish my thoughts as the wife was making me go get the Chinese food. But things like Child pornography or other obscene materials are illegal because they are evidence of an illegal act. It isn't speech. If you're the creator of said material, the acts depicted are illegal. You cannot argue it was your freedom of speech/expression. If you are the owner of said material, you are owning illegal contraband, much in the same way a possession of cocaine is illegal. There's nothing "speech" related at all.
What good is a debate about hate speech without examples and questions, so here goes. An old white guy says... he thinks all niggers are worthless and we'd be better off if they were all dead. Is that hate speech? I would guess most if not all would say yes but yet is he free to say it?. Black guy says he thinks all you white trash cocksuckers are worthless and we'd be better off if they were all dead. Is that hate speech? Many leftists would argue no based on their conclusion that it's impossible for a minority to be guilty of hate speech. Old white guy says to a gay man, eat shit and die you homo fuck. Is that hate speech? Gay man says to old white guy, I hate your fucking guts you homophobe shithead and wish you were dead. Is that hate speech? Sorry to be so blunt about this, but it is hate were talking about and all of the above statements are hate filled. Some have argued lines need to be drawn. Okay, who draws the line? Who decides what is offensive? Some have used the old argument of the Supreme court justice who said he knows porn when he sees it. How long ago was that? Decades. Bet that line is different today than it was then and that's the whole problem with line drawing. What and who gets offended is constantly shifting. Bottom line for me. Words/speech/deeds, however hate filled, should be protected unless there is a direct threat against an individual or specific group. A direct threat. Saying I wish you were dead is not a direct threat. Saying I'm going to kill you is. Seems clear enough to me, and it's only when people try to blur the obvious is when we get into trouble.