See, this is exactly what I said. I didn't need to build a strawman. You did it for me.
I'm free to run down the street swinging your fists, but if I swing my fist into someone's face and break their nose, that's bad. I think we can all agree on that, right? What if I told you that swinging my fists was a form of "artistic expression", or was part of my religion? Should I be free to express myself at the expense of the rest of society?
The fact that restricting the verbal equivalent of "swinging fists into others' faces" may be a good thing doesn't mean that can be redefined as free speech, because everyone has their own idea of what these reasonable restrictions are. Free speech is free speech, even if it's in practice a bad idea.
A "spoken crime" is not a "thought crime". There's no chip in your head, you're free to think whatever you like, even if you're not necessarily free to say anything you like.
For example, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, offering a bribe, and threatening someone all seem like actions you could be arrested for in the USA where the only evidence is your speech (or a recording of it). Would these qualify as thought crimes to you and if so do you think there is a developed nation with free speech where they are accepted?
All people should be treated the exact same under the law
For example, I think that a country can be said to have free speech if it disallows people from promising to compensate someone in exchange for murder.
>Lots of Americans like to think that as soon as you moderately curtail freedom of expression, you've crossed some threshold
You have crossed a Threshold
>and you're now North Korea.
Nice strawman you have there.....
>it's possible to have reasonable constraints on expression!
Proving you do not have or support Free Speech, you support "Reasonably Restricted Speech" which is not the same thing