I am all for pretty much unrestrained freedom of speech. There are some limits, like a direct incitement to violence, but those limits should be truly exceptional. In this respect, Americans have it right with their legal framework and tradition. Hate speech laws and such, on the books in many other countries, may be well intentioned, but they not only infringe on individual rights, they also prevent a true dialogue between groups they are supposed to protect and perpetuate fragmentation and isolation. They destroy the dialectic play of ideas.
But much more important than the legal framework is the social one. Specifically the unofficial censorship and self-censorship. The First Amendment is not very effective. The Danish cartoon affair is a good example. Unlike many major European newspapers, the American ones did a splendid job of self-censorship. The political correctness on American universities is apparently as rampant as elsewhere, if not more. Freedom of press indexes rank US not only below most European countries (with their hate speech laws) but even below some Caribbean ones.
The reality is that money talks, i.e. the freedom of speech is for the rich. [MENTION=8485]tinker683[/MENTION] above says that s/he has the right to ignore whomever s/he wants, but people like Trump or Soros are heard even by those who consider them morons spouting off bullshit.