I have an issue with the idea of so-called "Free Speech." Philosophically, I do not believe in freedom of the will as I believe that we all are guided by something so action is neither independent, nor free of something. With that being said, I wanted to challenge the notion of Free Speech. Free Speech by definition, is the political right for one to express his/her views without fear of reprecussion. However in challenging this notion on freedom we are not necessarily free from reprecussion, rather, we are free as it is determined by law the extent of what is considered acceptable and not in violation of the law of the land. Although we are free to dislike president Obama we are not free to say that we will do harm to president Obama. In some cases it would be considered a threat even if we do not intend to harm the president. Similarly, one cannot yell out fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. Proponents may argue that yelling fire even if it is a joke is still considered free speech. No it is not. In looking at this from a practical perspective if someone yells out fire simply to be comical, and to cause disturbance, someone may call the fire department, the fire department shows up to see if there is a real fire and there isn't, not only are you taking away manpower for a potential fire, the prankster wastes time, money, and resource. Protected Speech only protects the individual from legal repricussion, not social reprecussion which is why the internet provides a safe haven for those that have extreme racial, political, and religious views because these individuals understand that aside from their anonymity, they are legally protected from their views and do not fear social repricussion. But their speech is nonetheless limited. In my philosophical view when speech is only limited to a particular sphere (e.g. internet) then it is not necessarily free speech as any real freedom isn't restricted into one particular sphere.