Where do we draw the line when it comes to free speech?

Where do we draw the line in free speech? We don't. If we did, it would be approved speech.

SPC (Join to see) I usually really try to be respectful and intelligent in my replies on RP, these people need to be deported to a third world country that doesn't even have toilet paper. Very sad that Facebook is even allowing such stuff (even for a minute) to be posted. This isn't Freedom of Speech in my opinion; it is rude, ridiculous, and just plain childish and immature. These people have no clue what Freedom of Speech is or the Freedom they enjoy in this country. Do something like in other foreign countries and see where it will get you. Disgusting! Sorry if I got a little carried away!

Some speech should be nice and widely distributed so that the whole country can see how they feel about the USA and the flag. Their boss might be interested. So might their mothers. So might the local VFW...

I don't remember learning that kind of behavior in college, the military, or the home. Maybe they went to a different finishing school.

It's still free speech. However, my first thought was "What morons". They have no idea what oppression is. I seem to recall reading about a woman in Iran who is being prosecuted for the indecency of shaking her male lawyers hand. I wonder what the punishment in a Sharia Court would be for distributing a bottomless picture of yourself on the internet? Or if these people would recognize Sharia as being oppressive?

According to constitution and law in the most basic form, the only 2 topics not covered under free speech is defamation and obscenity. Of course what is defamation or obscenity can be considered subjective, but there are some topics which ethically can be unprotected under free speech such as threats of violence, child sexual abuse, etc. Everything else is debatable.

"Speech" has long been interpreted to mean "expression." That means that actions committed to make a statement are considered protected unless they cause harm or incite violence. The implications of reversing this view would be staggering and I'm pretty confident you would not be happy with the results.

This is so over the top I'd wager they're doing this for the sole purpose of getting a rise out of people. Life trolls. If you flip out on them, you'll only encourage them.

WE don't. it's only when speech becomes detrimental to good order and discipline within the military that we are concerned. hence the UCMJ. as for civilians, the have a right to say anything that comes to their fuzzy little minds subject to certain common sense restrictions (fire in a theater). if someone says something that offends you, man up, ignore it, move along.

I have used this reference before - but I think it fits in this conversation:
From the movie - The American President (1995)
President Andrew Shepherd (Michael Douglas):
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Show me that, defend that, and celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, and celebrate that in your classrooms.
Unfortunately, in 'free speech' you have to allow all to say their words (or you don't have 'free speech') - but it doesn't mean you have to listen to them. Walk away, turn to a different channel or station - you are 'free' to decide what you want to see and hear. It's always your decision whether or not you want to continue to read and/or listen to someone that is spouting off things you don't like, appreciate or believe in. Even though we might not like what is being said or being broadcast on some media - we cannot censor it or we become the very thing that we have fought World Wars over. I did not defend this country for over 32 years for it to slide into some fascist or Nazi type existence. I hope our new generations will learn from history and also actually read the constitution and its amendment’s so that they will not doom us to keep repeating history.
Many symbols have been taken on by groups that were originally not a bad thing: the Swastika was a religious symbol before the Nazi Party turned its image into something people associated with evil, the confederate flag was not considered bad until the KKK and other white supremacy groups begin using it. Just because someone utilizes a ‘symbol’ doesn’t mean that symbol is bad.
From a different perspective, those that have been inadvertently and unintentionally attacked by our own military during various operations through the years by inaccurate intelligence or misdirected weapons deployment could view the United States Flag as a symbol of evil.
It all depends on your view point and the circumstances surrounding whatever issue is occurring. History is history, you either accept it for what it was and hopefully learn from it or you are doomed to repeat it. People need to stop being ‘sheepeople’ and open their eyes and look past all the ‘smoke and mirrors’ and discover the truth about subjects before going off and giving into to all the perpetual ‘yellow journalism’ that is broadcast constantly.
If you truly believe in the concept of ‘free speech’ in all its forms, then someone doing something that you don’t approve of that doesn’t hurt or damage a living person even though it might make your blood boil should not be ‘censored.’ Providing continued focus on the ‘improper actions’ just makes more people continue to spread the unwanted information further. There are numerous examples of things going ‘viral’ on the various media sources because people continue to focus on something.