This is an easy 2 points.  Why do people use the freedom of speech amendment when they are in a jam?
468727
If I may help frame the question a bit ....\n\nThere is no such thing as illegal knowledge, at least not in the US.  If people want to discuss the best way to grow pot or build bombs or bake cakes, they are free to do so.  The actual growing of pot or building bombs may be illegal, but having and sharing information about how to do it is protected by the 1st Amendment, as you suggest.\n\nOther kinds of communication, however, can constitute crimes.  If two people share information about how to grow pot as part of a plan to break the law, they are engaged in a conspiracy to commit a crime and that is illegal--it is a crime even if they never get to the actual pot-growing stage so long as either of them does anything--like buying potting soil--to further the plot.\n\nIt can also be illegal to disclose certain military or State secrets, or to sell or use for personal gain certain business secrets that do not belong to you.  But the crime here is not the knowing, but the sharing.\n\nThat much is background.  The most common abuse of the 1st Amendment happens when someone says something really stupid or hateful and, when called on it, says "well, I have a 1st Amendment right to say that."  Of course they do, but that is beside the point.  The point is they said something stupid or hateful.  They are using the reference to the 1st Amendment to try to avoid taking responsibility for their action.  It is like saying "I right a right to be an idiot."  Sure, but is it really a good idea?
869836
Your other respondents have already given you the basic answer.  Where your expression creates an imminent danger to other citizens, then that expression is not allowed.  Some words are considered too inflammatory for public expression, or "fighting words".  You cannot express yourself to the point of provoking others to violence or panic where public safety is jeopardized.  That is common sense and our laws were written with a common sense public in mind.  In other words, most of us know what is right and what is wrong.  We know better than to incite a riot with lying words in a polarized crowd for instance.  Because some people are too dense to use common sense, we have had to verbalize and memorialize some of those restrictions.  Call it censorship if you wish but it is really stating certain restrictions on the freedom of expression that most of us already clearly understand.
531123
For the people that don't know what that is:\n\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/\n The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nIt really is sad to see those soldiers fighting for freedom when freedom is being taken away.
541934
It is not destroying the nation, but attacking it's First Amendment right to free speech.  Our politicians who think the general public is so stupid adopted this so they can be two faced and get everybody to vote for them, because no one can be offended. I, for one, hate political correctness.  You can put a fancy dress on a pig and give it a fancy name, but when it gets to the trough it's still a pig.
765193
Are you even American?\n\nWhat part of American freedom of speech is a non-American entitled to?\n\nYour mentality is poison to a democratic republic.
877310
Many prefer security to freedom, becuase they don't ever attempt to utilize their freedoms, so they don't realize when they have lost them.\n\nI'm from New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. And I try to remind people that we only have those freedoms that we can defend. And we only have those rights we choose to fight for.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
444597
it would be chaos if everyone could speaks as they liked. it would be interrupted all the time. and in court you need to use the law, not emotion to decide. if people get emotional or start a speech, that goes out the window. the all rise is respect to the judge.
647908
People should be free to talk about whatever, wherever without any fear of recrimination. Why should you keep politics behind closed doors?  YOu don't just accept what is thrown to you if you don't agree. Its called a democracy, and that is what freedom of speech is all about. Unfortunately radio stations & TV are mostly still controlled by Government, meaning that yes, radio stations are not free to play whatever they like. And that is what the Dixie Chicks are ranting about, the fact that radio stations are NOT free to play whatever they like.
24175
You have freedom of speech in the US, criminally you cannot be charge with a crime speaking your mind. The only thing you cannot say is Fire in a public place and that you are going to kill our presdent, those two thing are illegal to say.\n\nNow civilly, you can be brought to court for saying lies (slander) or damaging statements about people that affected them in some way. \n\nThere are very limited consquences for using your right to free speech.
277002
Absolutely.  It's freedom of speech.  Its the first ammendment of the constitution.(Bill of rights section)
1129435
What utter nonsense. What you want is freedom to say whatever you want without consequences.  That's a very different thing.\nPeople using this kind of question to make political points against ANY administration are just silly, as some of your answers did.  They are willing to undermine our country's reputation for political "points".\nTruth is, we have free speech, and so do the people who respond to you, argue with you, disagree with you, and even insult you. If you are watching what you say, it's because you are too timid to say what you mean and stand by it.\nYou still have the freedom to do that, and that was all that was ever granted us in the first place.\nPeople also have a right to respond to your speech.\n\nYahoo! Answers and other groups that provide a forum for you to speak get to add their own rules.  Just because you use the forum does not mean you get the right to dictate what the rules of that forum are.  They have the right, as owners of the site, to determine that.  If they wanted to limit it to people who can talk only about pink dyed poodles without the participants using the letter "p", they could (not much of a market in that), and have the right to do so.\n\nSomeone loans you a soapbox, but they get to decide whether you use it, or get to take it away if you don't follow their rules.\n\nHOWEVER, you are free to start your own website, your own newsletter, your own T.V. station, your own radio station, and you get to make the rules.\n\nIF you did, would you want people coming with insults about you and your views, or spewing filth to insist that you had to spend your money so they could "speak freely"?\n\nWhat nonsense.  You have no right to ask that.
1001124
Oh, I am wounded to the core.\n\nAre you familiar with a document that conservatives shredded and used for toilet paper called the Constitution?  Well, the First Amendment  to that document, which Bush is reported to have called "just a GD piece of paper" guarantees free speech as not only a value, but a right.\n\nIt is not an absolute freedom, of course, there are restrictions against its abuse, such as libel and defamation, obscenity, incitement to crime, and sedition.  Although they have been rejected by American courts, some arguments have been made that speech which is offensive whould also fall under restricted speech, such as using the phrase "sissy liberal talk."
338730
Freedom of speech is up there with freedom of religion in the First Amendment.  You think about why they wanted to put it first, and you have the importance.\n\nCivil rights generally refer to rights under the Constitution as Amended.  That is, generally about the amendments more than the body of the Constitution, except that of course it is the body that gives authority to the Amendments.\n\nSo yes, freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights we have, and we need to guard it with our lives, if necessary.  This is NOT the same thing as claiming the right to say any thing, any where, any time, at any volume.  It is a fundamental right that has to be measured against the other guy's equally fundamental right.  So we have endless case law detail on how, exactly, to implement the fundamental right of freedom of speech.  That's called Constitutional Law, and you get it in law school.\n\nI recommend going to law school to anyone who can.  Even if you never take the bar exam and practice law, the knowledge will serve you well in a variety of fields, most notably business, finance, non-profit foundations, and a host of others.
395920
In the United States a citizen has a right to voice their opinion. This is called Freedom of Speech and unfortunately you cannot do much about it.  If that person were to infringe on your rights, or commit an act of violence because of your nationality/creed it would be a hate crime.  The best thing to do is to keep on going and ignore their hateful comments.  If you let an idiot affect you, what have you become?  an idiot.  So don't let these people get beneath your skin because thats what they want.  If you take steps to silence this person, well that would be infringing on their rights, so its best to just ignore them and move on.
591521
The deal is: "Freedom of speech goes both ways"\n\nPeople not only have a right to say pretty much what they want, other people have a right to object, argue & even ask for an apology. \n\nA liberal says something, a conservative objects & the conservative is bashed for 'violating a person's freedom of speech.' \n\nA conservative says something, a liberal objects, and conservatives either let it drop there or defend the original statement on its merit.\n\nSo who is really against freedom of speech;\n\nThe conservative who asks a liberal for an apology for an offensive statement, or the liberal who acts like you aren't allowed to express the fact your offended by a statement?
869510
When you begin telling people that certain legal activities cannot take place that is deprivation of personal liberties.  When you decide any religion is offensive, it is a violation of the United States Constitution...When you take away the right to own property through Imminent Domain it is an infringement on personal property rights that are pillars of democracy  that violate the United States Constitution.  You cannot shout Fire in an occupied building and expect for it to be considered Free Speech or insult people different than yourself because of race or gender, there are limits.....Becoming too politically correct, being the thought and food police under the guise of liberty is really a ruse to infringe upon individual liberty one by one until your government has become socialist/communist.  That is never a good thing.
1418
No, at least not in the US. It goes with the whole "freedom of speech" thing. The first amendment says:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIf someone is telling you how to speak in your own backyard, your first amendment rights are being violated.\n\nHowever if you're cursing loud enough to disturb your neighbours, then you're infringing on their rights, in which case you can be charged with a disorderly persons offence.