Tracy said in When is freedom of speech not free?:

But outlawing the ability of people to talk in a derogatory manner about others is taking it to the extreme. Hurt feelings are not a place that government needs to be doing legislating in.

I agree partially. There should be no right to be offended. However, there are lines which probably shouldn't be crossed. Here in the Great White North, we do limit free speech when that speech promotes or incites violence or genocide against "a defined racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, religious or other identifiable group" which I think is a reasonable limitation. Now you may question what defines violent speech, and that is something left up to the judicial system.

Tracy said in When is freedom of speech not free?:

Classic case is the theory that LGBTQ books are "bad" for school libraries because they talk about sex (what the certain religious types consider unnatural sex acts)

Based on some of the things I've seen going on in America this last while, I'd say there are quite a few on the religious right who are against any mention of sex altogether. I'm not sure what sort of repression they're peddling, but it's very strange.

We do have some those sorts of zealots here too, who want to keep our sensitive children from learning about sex outside of their version of the married, hetrosexual type. (Oddly, the word "consensual" doesn't seem part of that). Fortunately, Canada is primarily a secular nation, so there aren't that many and they have little power.

On the other side of it, we have secularism laws in one province (Quebec -- that's Ke-beck' for those concerned with proper pronounciation) where religious symbols or attire are not allowed for any civil service workers. Their reasoning is all about ensuring freedom from religion (just as important as the freedom of religion) in the workplace. It's also to ensure equality for women, as many see the hijab, for instance, as a symbol of female oppression. It's a contentious law that has many screaming about discrimination. Time will tell how it all plays out.

It's also a fact that many of the people who are most vocal about free speech interpret it to mean "free for me, but not for thee". They want the freedom to say whatever they like without consequence, while maintaining their "right" to curtail others.

And, of course, America's version of free speech is different from that in a lot of other countries, where governments have put limits on what can be said if it is deemed harmful to some other group.