In the US, this isn’t accurate at all. > It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse No, it means the government cannot restrict speech. > Freedom

In the US, this isn’t accurate at all. > It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse No, it means the government cannot restrict speech. > Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. [0] Most people assume “free speech” means “nobody” can restrict it, but it is in fact only “by the government”. For example, you do not have freedom of speech at my house. I am free to demand anyone who says the word “blue” on my property to immediately leave. You also don’t have free speech on the public comment section of my blog. I can delete (or not approve) any comments that don’t adhere to a list of approved words, or are not sufficiently praiseful of my views. There are some state and federal laws that protect free speech at private companies, but they are mostly around employment as you can read about in the article. That’s why I think OC is stating that the definition of “free speech” is important. Are we talking about US law, or about an abstract concept that “nobody can restrict public discourse” that doesn’t exist in reality? > The only complications have always been situations where private enterprise dominates or impedes on public discourse. Not true. There are many, many complications to free speech. > Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment include obscenity (as determined by the Miller test), fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. [1] These types of speech can be legally restricted, punished and censored. This list was not created in 1776, it was created over time because the line isn’t clear. What’s always been clear though is that there have always been complicated edge cases concerning free speech. The issue is so complicated it’s been litigated in the Supreme Court possibly hundreds of times [2]. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court only takes on a case if it presents a novel problem or if they thought a previous Supreme Court mad an egregious error in judgement. So the sheer volume of cases means that there continue to be many unique, complicated facets to “free speech”, not all of which involve private enterprise. Protesting, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom to petition, compelled speech, false speech, etc. all can be complicated issues concerning individuals or public institutions. [0], [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Uni... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Suprem...