There is a clear (and working) distinction between free speech of type A and of type B in other countries. In Germany, just as an example, you are free to express your OPINION (type A), but not to express false facts (type B). If you express false facts, knowingly, and those false facts have damaging effects you are fully liable for compensation.

Simple example: if a person wrongly claims, that some local artisan's business is insolvent, and the artisan can prove that a potential customer withdrew an order for that reason, the person who spread the fake news has to pay for the artisan's loss. Entirely.

Talking someone into commiting a crime is never treated as free speech, either.

So, this is the legal construct in Germany:

- you are free to have any opinion you like ("Meinungsfreiheit") and

- you are free to express those opinions to the public ("Redefreiheit")

Free speech, here, is limited to opinion. There is no such thing as "i am free to lie, blame, insult, taunt, threaten, defame, verbally harass, berate, incite etc..." with the excuse of free speech.

In Germany, if you say: "The president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", AND you cannot prove this as a fact, and the POTUS goes after you for that statement, you will have to compensate for the damages of that claim (this will become very expensive, if the POTUS can prove that he lost reelections because of that statement). If you say: "To my conviction (in my opinion/I believe), the president of the United States suffers from narcissistic personality disorder", this would be completely legal in Germany.

And yes, the distinction matters!

It is my understanding that, currently, the following speech is of "type B, disallowed" in the US:

* Shouting fire in a crowded theatre

* False advertisement

* Medical or legal advice (allowed, heavily regulated by the Government)

* Advocacy of force or criminal activity

And I assume, many others that I do not know of.

Unless you are arguing that there is no such thing as free speech in the US, then it must be that you can have "free speech" while still having some limitations.

"Don't you see that labeling or discriminating between "free speech of type A, allowed" and "free speech of type B, disallowed" defeats the whole notion of "free"?"

Yeah, why are you allowed to play tennis but you aren't allowed to kill people? Why can you say John's a good person but you can't say he molests children? Why can you shout "fore" on a golf course but not "fire" in a movie theatre?

There's always a limit. Choosing to stop your for-profit web service from enabling bigotry and murder seems a pretty low bar here. Let me know when it's being used to prevent the discussion of ideas such as Marxism or veganism or solar power or whatever which might upset the current power structure.