Discuss.

Absolutely not and anyone who thinks there are should kill his or herself.

What about harassment? Do you not think that a person who is constantly harassing someone should be penalised if their actions are known or reasonably ought to be known to be unwanted?

Of course. There's numerous instances where it should be limited.

Care to name a few and elaborate on why?

Quote from: Eliab on January 05, 2016, 03:00:06 PM

Quote from: UltimateKidzBopFan08 on January 05, 2016, 02:19:42 PM

Obviously.

Libel, slander, incitement to violence, classified information, trade secrets, copyright, NDAs and the right to privacy.

Is this a definitive list?

I'd say it's pretty good.

What would be needed to make it perfect?

fancy a fookin square go then lads

Yeah, when liberals are talking.

Yeah, when liberals are talking.

based

I draw a heavy line between freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Should you be able to scream "bomb" on an airplane? Of course not. But you should be able to hold any opinion, no matter how ludicrous, and be free to tell others about it without any persecution. Protecting that is what's most important.

No. Threatening somebody is punishable.

Isn't incitement to violence a slippery slope, for example, criticizing a person or their belief?

Noto v. United States, 367 U. S. 290, 367 U. S. 297-298 (1961),
"the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."

Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 301 U. S. 259-261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116, 385 U. S. 134 (1966).
"A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control."

Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969),
"Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

tl;dr No, incitement to violence is not a slippery slope. It's very clearly defined to defend constitutional freedoms from overreaching forces.