Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

We have limits on free speech in the US under the law, it is not an absolute right, nor is it "basically nil".

The exceptions have been cited above, and we probably missed a few.

we have extremely narrow limits on free speech in the US.

But you can threaten the president. I can think of 15 examples of that prior to this current president.

We allow foreigners from far away lands to say things like “death to America“ on social media but we want to shut down the guy who says hydroxylchloroquine helped him

Again-There is no ultimate arbiter for the truth and what is miss information.  The only real choice is to let people have access to all of it and make up their own minds.

Censorship, especially if sponsored by the government, as a path to hell.

this, all day long. it amazes me that people do not see this. 

they view the government as some benevolent loving figure that is there to give you a warm hug and take care of you. newsflash: they aren't. the government is just a collection of people- many of them unelected. and if you give people tremendous power- they will abuse it. every single time. absolute power corrupts absolutely. our government has proven this time and time and time again. they are NOT to be trusted, period. people are people- and they can be shady f**king assholes who can get drunk with power, who will break rules, try to cover things up to maintain their power, and manipulate do things that benefit themselves and those close to them. 

but apparently we have people here who think censorship by the government is OK.

Might as well hand out social credit scores, mandate vaccine cards to go anywhere (even though the vaccines do not prevent transmission), let the government massively surveil it's own citizens - hell let's just be like China. F**k it. Who cares about freedom? 

Almost nil is not nil, and the restrictions are because of the public interest.  You also can't threaten a President obviously and there are limits on obscenities.  Speech showing a clear intent to discriminate or sexually harass is barred.

I just posted the question as to where the line should be drawn, and how. 

I don't know the answer to that.

6 Surprising Exceptions to Freedom of Speech | The Saturday Evening Post

I dont think this is the case
as an example the President in on record saying he will only consider a black woman for the SCOTUS
thats pretty clearly intent to discriminate

Discriminate against preferred classes of people. 

you meant protected not preferred

Yup, protected classes.  My bad.

I dont think this is the case
as an example the President in on record saying he will only consider a black woman for the SCOTUS
thats pretty clearly intent to discriminate

I think this is a good example because it shows that “speech intended to discriminate“ isn’t really a thing at all. 

We?

The second part is interesting. We do attach certain social guard rails. There are debates about that raging all over, where those should be. Some of those are probably good, others it’s more debatable.

think he's referring to twitter - which let's leaders from other countries- like Iran - tweet some pretty heinous, ridiculous, outrageously offensive shit - yet this same company bans it's US users willy nilly for basically nothing - they were banning people for saying cloth masks don't work- banning people for the dumbest sh*t - hell they banned the President of the United States lol - and no one in the US seems to have a problem with this or think it's batshit crazy.