Now compare it to Twitter or Facebook. You don't know what you signing up for. Their TOS effectively say they can ban you for things they deem wrong. It is only recently that we know how they evaluate it ( see CNN discussion of FB speech violence tiers ).

Free speech is just that. It is free speech. There is no TOS. It includes all sorts of nasty bits too, because that is what being human is. Trying to pretend otherwise is, at best, counterproductive.

But here we are. Entire nation scared of reality and in dire need to cover it up with soft language.

<< But the founding principles have always had restrictions build in.

Do they? I am reading the constitution and I don't see those restrictions. You may get a visit from some agencies, but that is to make sure you were not joking.

On the other hand, I do see a mention of when slavery is ok in US and yet people seem surprised when it is pointed out.

You can say what you want. Just don't make it look like the army is saying this.

It may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. You voluntarily join the army. You join that specific group and accept their 'rules'. It is harder to argue ( not impossible since there are naturalized citizens, who clearly opt in to become citizens ) that citizens by right of birth voluntarily opt into that set of rules. That is the where constitution comes in.

What I am saying is that army argument is flawed.

edit: changed typical to average

[1]https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/...

My argument is every one believes there are limits to free speech they just place the boundaries at different places. And I stand by my position that the soldier example is on a fundamental level a restriction on free speech.