[frank2]

>it was not all that long ago that we had the "equal time" rule that required media outlets to host both liberal and conservative commentary

That only ever applied to broadcast media (and maybe only to prime-time TV). Publishers of the written word have never been required by the US government to grant equal time.

>For most of the history of the United States free speech has been more limited than it is today

I don't know what you could mean by that unless you are referring to the fact that before the internet became mainstream, you had to own a printing press or something like that to reach a mass audience.

[betterunix2]

A century ago in the United States the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was used in a Supreme Court ruling upholding the censorship of anti-draft activists during World War I, and within living memory the United States had various laws censoring pornographic photos and videos. There was even a time when it was illegal to have the Post Office carry written information about contraception:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

Just a decade ago free speech rights were expanded to include corporations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Ele...

In case anyone tries to claim that the founders intended for the most expansive possible understanding of freedom of speech, the fact is that one of the earliest laws passed in the United States was a law that censored criticisms of the Federal government (in an attempt to crack down on foreign misinformation campaigns):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[gruez]

>In case anyone tries to claim that the founders intended for the most expansive possible understanding of freedom of speech, the fact is that one of the earliest laws passed in the United States was a law that censored criticisms of the Federal government (in an attempt to crack down on foreign misinformation campaigns):

I'm not sure whether that proves your point. The wikipedia article says that it was controversial, caused the federalist party to lose the following election, and ultimately expired after 4 years.

[betterunix2]

The fact that the law was passed by the same men who ratified the constitution says a lot about their concept of freedom of speech, even if it was controversial and short lived. If the founders really meant for free speech to be as expansive as it is today it is hard to see how such a law could have been passed in the first place.

[gruez]

>The fact that the law was passed by the same men who ratified the constitution says a lot about their concept of freedom of speech

You can also argue that it was defeated by the same men who ratified the constitution, and that the "free speech" side ultimately prevailed, therefore they really did mean free speech to be that expansive.

[frank2]

OK, but the topic is hate speech in particular, and there has never been a time when hate speech modulo calls to violent action (and possibly calls on landlords or employers to discriminate) has been unlawful in the US.