You're right. It's not either/or. It is possible to have limits. But the society should determine those limits. We are completely within our right to do so. If

You're right. It's not either/or. It is possible to have limits. But the society should determine those limits. We are completely within our right to do so. If we don't want people stomping around claiming and ethnic group is subhuman and should be exterminated, society has the right to determine that. We choose our representatives, they make a law, and then that speech is no longer protected. Now, the people who would be subjected to that limit are going to fight tooth and nail to defend it. They will espouse all manner of fallacy, especially the slippery slope that the US will become China or North Korea or Russia. These are intentional tactics to obfuscate the power of the majority for their nefarious schemes. However, if the majority decides it wants to ban, say, all non-Christian speech, then other rights kick in: such as the right to practice any religion freely. The Bill of Rights is a fairly astute document not just in its content but its malleability (hello prohibition & slavery & suffrage), because the Constitution was missing a lot of important things. Let's not underestimate it, nor let others do so.