> Having the government regulate bull-shitting is a huge step towards tyranny.

And yet, we've had libel and slander laws forever. The government has never not regulated bullshitting, all serious debate is over the precise boundaries, not whether it should be done.

Maybe Millenials are just more honest about it, and decline to label regulation that does only what they are happy with as “Free Speech”.

I don’t disagree that saying we have “Free Speech” in America is a bit of an overstatement, but the article wasn’t taking about millennials simple wanting to do away with the phrase “Free Speech”. It states many would be in favor of regulating speech simply for its capacity to offend.

> It states many would be in favor of regulating speech simply for its capacity to offend

No, it doesn't. It says that many are in favor of colleges regulating some on-campus speech that is deliberately offensive. Even to the extent that the colleges are public and thus even relevant to “free speech” considerations, that's a combination of context and intent to offend, not mere capacity to offend, that is at issue.

(It separately says that many would support the government regulating “certain types of offensive speech”, which does not provide enough information to support that the basis is mere capacity to offend; the types of things that constitute per se defamation are arguably a “certain type of offensive speech”, for instance; vague categories are good for getting big scary numbers, but weak for supporting concrete conclusions.)

“certain types of offensive speech” is clarified as "the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups" when you look at the study.

I agree that it feels inflated compared to potentially less emotionally provocative question about freedom of speech as a fundamental concept.

Then again, I wouldn't be shocked if that is the the general stance of a lot of people. Speaking as a Canadian, these types of government restrictions on hateful speech are written into law and largely uncontested in politics.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

Largely not successfully contested, perhaps, but not uncontested. I’m probably more tuned into the Canadian zeitgeist than your average American (I’m basically half Canadian and have a large number of Canadian family and acquaintances, including some involved in Canadian politics), and I certainly hear concern about where the ideas behind those laws may lead.

I really don’t understand people who are more afraid of a racial slur (to be clear, I strongly disapprove of that kind of thing) than of losing freedom of thought and of expression.

Who is the judge of if the intent was to offend or express a different viewpoint?

Presumably, the same as would be the case for any other intent-based regulation by the same regulator.

Prohibitions where intent is an essential component, and judging intent is essential to applying the prohibition are not new in campus regulation, or in civil and criminal law, for that matter.

But, in any case, that's in implementation issue that is not germane to what support has actually been voiced for.

What is one example of the government regulating free speech through law in the last 10 years?

Here's another (UK though) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-f...

Your question is a red herring. Even if there were no examples in the last ten years (and there are), you only need to have a little awareness what led up to the rise of totalitarian governments in the 20th century to realize this is not good.

AG-GAG laws

Laws in various US jurisdictions targeting the BDS movement.

Here's one (PT though)

https://www.dn.pt/portugal/interior/piropos-ja-sao-crime-e-d...

Translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pt&tl=en&js=y&prev...