Just my opinion here, but I think the line between "free speech" and "not free speech" should be drawn at provable and intentional prevarication, such as libel. Opinion, however "hateful" it may be found to be by this individual or that one would not fall under that heading, as opinion cannot be proven wrong - it's an opinion.
BUT - speech that is demonstrably false objectively, and injurious - something like the provernial shouting of FIRE! in a crowded theater when there is no fire present, and which could lead to a stampede based upon false statement of "fact", would then not be "free speech".
Examples:
"Hunter Biden is a crack head" - statement of "fact" which, if supporting evidence can be produced, would be protected. Libelous if no evidence can be produced, and then not protected.
"I think Hunter Biden acts like a crack head" - statement of opinion. Also protected.
"Hunter Biden was abducted by aliens" - Statement of "fact" Not protected unless evidence can be produced, but not really libelous, either, since Mr. Biden is not injured by a belief that aliens may have abducted him. Not protected speech, but not really actionable, either.
"Hunter Biden has a big nose" - Subjective rather than objective, and therefore opinion rather than a statement of fact.
"Hunter Biden has a nose that is over 3 inches long" - Statement of "fact" that can be validated or refuted with objective evidence.
"It looks to me like Hunter Biden's nose must be over 3 inches long" - Subjective statement of opinion.
Incitement to riot - A touchy subject, and probably the stickiest one. If what the individual says is true, and it provokes a riot because it is, is that really not protected speech? Are there times people SHOULD riot and revolt? Remember, the US was created by a revolution sparked by incendiary speech...
.
BUT - speech that is demonstrably false objectively, and injurious - something like the provernial shouting of FIRE! in a crowded theater when there is no fire present, and which could lead to a stampede based upon false statement of "fact", would then not be "free speech".
Examples:
"Hunter Biden is a crack head" - statement of "fact" which, if supporting evidence can be produced, would be protected. Libelous if no evidence can be produced, and then not protected.
"I think Hunter Biden acts like a crack head" - statement of opinion. Also protected.
"Hunter Biden was abducted by aliens" - Statement of "fact" Not protected unless evidence can be produced, but not really libelous, either, since Mr. Biden is not injured by a belief that aliens may have abducted him. Not protected speech, but not really actionable, either.
"Hunter Biden has a big nose" - Subjective rather than objective, and therefore opinion rather than a statement of fact.
"Hunter Biden has a nose that is over 3 inches long" - Statement of "fact" that can be validated or refuted with objective evidence.
"It looks to me like Hunter Biden's nose must be over 3 inches long" - Subjective statement of opinion.
Incitement to riot - A touchy subject, and probably the stickiest one. If what the individual says is true, and it provokes a riot because it is, is that really not protected speech? Are there times people SHOULD riot and revolt? Remember, the US was created by a revolution sparked by incendiary speech...
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’