That link has already sailed. Libel and slander are already illegal speech, as is inciting violence, as is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, as is saying curse words on broadcast TV and radio.
This is simply not correct. This was a dum analogy by justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a case about a draft protest. He later overturned his own opinion in that case expanding free speech.
> Libel and slander are already illegal speech, as is inciting violence
Libel and slander mean the same thing. You're thinking of libel and defamation. All of these are extremely narrowly defined in American law.
Some jurisdictions have criminalized "hate speech", but the implementation and definition of this is haphazard, and the consequences are often negative, rebounding on communities that were originally intended to be protected.
The one you missed which is consistently forbidden across the world is CSAM.
We're starting to see proposals and legislation to include police officers as a protected group under hate crime/speech statutes. That's a hairsbreadth from lèse-majesté.
Protection laws in the US are an absurd and abused mess. I would only be mildly surprised to see minorities prosecuted for hate crimes for attempting suicide.
You really should stop spreading that falsehood. It was overturned over 50 years ago.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
People feel confident repeating things they've heard often, with a sarcastic smirk, because the ubiquity of the thing they're repeating gives them some security that if they're called on to defend those things, someone more knowledgeable will probably show up and help.
The most depressing and ironic thing is when a self-proclaimed socialist cites the "crowded theater" thing, which was used to jail socialists speaking out against a war.
A popular term from a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court decades ago.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
this phrase will never go away, the fact that it stems from a 100 year old supreme court decision that used it as example why speech in opposition to the WWI draft was not protected free speech under the first amendment is still funny besides the fact that it was later overturned.