Now Inclusion Means Exclusion | National Review

Yes, agree with your first point. Whether there was INTENT to present the two ideas (free speech vs inclusion) as dichotomous can never be known. But in designing a poll, the pollster has a responsibility to design effective and objective questions, no? As to consequences of speech: Yes, we all recognize the existing and needed limits to free speech (e.g., inciting riots, causing immediate harm/loss of life). But consequences go both ways...if we allow the mob (vice the courts) to dictate what speech can be shut down, the consequences will be quite bad for America.

Col Joseph Lenertz - Agree on both points.

Exactly.

CW5 Jack Cardwell That's pretty much how human nature is. We love our tribes.

Free speech zones and limited topics? Who would get to decide where and what?

Col Joseph Lenertz - Simple common sense should decide. Just as one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, one should not preach white supremacy at a black organization. Note: this is just an example, not an attack on white supremacist.

Since both the NAACP and KKK are private organizations not government entities, they can deny one another the ability to speak at their organization's events. The problem comes when either of them are using a public forum (park, city hall, etc...), the government cannot stop one or the other from being in close proximity to that public forum and exercising their freedom of speech as long as they are not inciting or producing imminent lawless action with that speech. They does not mean one party cannot shout "kill all the ___" if they so desired, that probably does not meet the legal definition of inciting or imminent lawless action. Now if they were trapping one member of the ___ group in a room full of armed people and then saying "kill all the ___" it would probably be a different matter.

The way the survey is worded shows that the pollsters probably wanted to polarize their survey group and make them think that freedom of speech does not allow for an inclusive and diverse society.

MSG Stan Hutchison - Sorry, but there is no such thing as deciding constitutional interpretation by common sense. Your two examples...one is already covered by case law, and the other is an ethical "you shouldn't do this" but is definitely protected speech under the 1st amendment. We MUST be free to speak ugly things, or there is no freedom of speech.