bkd69 said:
I'm not American, but I appreciate how important freedom of speech is to you as a nation, but is it so important that there is no point at which you can say "this is wrong"?
Oh, there are lines, to be sure, but they exist far closer to where speech becomes action, and, unsurprisingly, in the much clearer cut world of commerce, than in political discussion or artistic expression.
Conspiracy, fraud, and harassment are all forms of speech that are generally exempt from protection.
Obscenity is a grayer issue, as that's based on local community standards, so much sport is made by local prosecutors who'll order some piece of fetishistic filth like 2g1c from San Francisco, then move to prosecute the producer for shipping it to Arseton, West Virginia, all in a bid to look good to the local electorate.
Hate speech as an offense is mostly prominent on college campuses as part of of a code of conduct. It's also manifest in workplaces as 'creating a hostile work environment,' which will lead to lawsuits by the aggrieved parties and the federal government. Also note that the standard of evidence is far lower for civil prosecution than criminal prosecution.
Hate speech as a criminal offense is primarily considered an aggravating factor, and generally comes to bear only in the investigation portion of a crime, where the case is budgeted with extra money and man hours.
Offensive speech is protected, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.
As far as child pornography goes, as I said, the legal theory for prosecution is based on the concept that the photographs are evidence of actual abuse. There have been moves in the past to extend the law to cover fictional depictions, but they've run afoul of legislating the private behavior of consenting adults, or restricting expression where there's no crime occurring.
But even then, there are still prosecutorial abuses. In Florida, America's wang, one prosecutor decided to file child pornography charges against a guy and a girl. Their victims? Themselves. They were 16 and 17 years old, and had taken pictures of themselves in various states of undress and intimate contact on their cellphones. And the kicker? He was charging them as adults.