> So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. [...] Or slander? Libel? As I said, the exceptions to freedom of speech are ex

> So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. [...] Or slander? Libel? As I said, the exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely narrowly carved out. What you're discussing is incitement to violence. There is a very high bar to prove incitement, libel or slander. It's almost impossible to libel a public figure, for example. Almost anything you could say about a politician is considered protected political speech. > How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? [...] Obscenity? These are restrictions that apply in very specific circumstances (e.g., representatives of public companies, television/radio hosts on certain regulated spectrum). > Speech is still very much regulated In extremely narrowly defined circumstances, which usually have a very high bar of proof. The general trend that I have observed since Trump's election, which I find very worrying, is for many American liberals to begin calling for greater regulation of speech. The 1st Amendment is incredibly expansive, which is one of the most appealing aspects of the American Constitution, in my opinion. In other countries (e.g., the UK and Germany), it is much easier for the government to regulate speech, which I don't think is healthy for democracy. It is easily for those in power to abuse such restrictions on speech.