lmeter

I'm in favour of a few criminal limits - perjury can't be allowed for example.

A person who supports placing legal limits on expression because they offend a group, religion, political party, etc. can't sincerely claim to be an advocate for free speech. Better to avoid the doublethink and stop defining free speech as speech that you approve of.

A definition of free speech that excludes 'hate speech' is faulty.

"Hate speech is not free speech" is a remarkably inane statement.

If you are against hate speech, you are against free speech. Opposing free speech is not an unacceptable position however.