Libel is not a crime, it is a tort. You may be sued by someone you defame, but no government entity or agent may imprison or fine you.

Wikipedia tells me there is such a thing as criminal libel, although it is rarely prosecuted. But that's beside the point IMO. I omitted that libel generally does not fall under criminal law because IMO the fact that the legal system can be used by private individuals to enforce libel laws makes them a government restriction on free speech.

Not in the US. Or maybe you could link a source you claim to have?

The government does not originate tort claims of libel. It is there to mediate disputes that citizens bring against each other. Because the next best thing is people committing acts of violence against each other.

Sure. Like I said, it's Wikipedia, so take it as you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

The relevant section:

"Criminal libel is rarely prosecuted but exists on the books in many states, and is constitutionally permitted in circumstances essentially identical to those where civil libel liability is constitutional."

Again, this is really beside the point IMO, as I mentioned before. I only brought it up due to being an unreconstituted pedant, unable to help myself.

> The government does determine what is and isn't allowed speech

That's as hyperbolic as my omission is glaring. Yes, there are a few very narrow exceptions made.

I would say, though, that our 1st amendment rights are stronger today than ever.

The important point is that the government has the power to make those exceptions, and exercises that power. It's the difference between absolute free speech and the messy reality we have.

But the initial point was normative, not factual. Beyond narrowly defined limits, the government ought not to be able to police speech, and being democratically elected is not a sufficient check, as John Stuart Mill pointed out long ago.