>Freedom of speech is about the government being able to
>control/punish/imprison.

i suppose. if you want to define the definition, then sure that's what it means, but that seems like some lawyerly bullshit. i think most people would agree that "freedom of speech" has more than the simple definition you've provided here - it's tied to government and that's it. i would suggest it has a definition that's also cultural/social/whatever word you'd like to use.

seems this is made apparent right here given you've provided the definition above and others are using it in, my opinion, a much broader (social/cultural) sense.

>So, the comic that I posted, should the US government imprison
>the person who made it? No

No, but what is at issue is how we react to it. perhaps you think violence, or murder more specifically, is appropriate at some level?

>Should they have made it? No.

i think this is entirely irrelevant. they did and should not have been murdered for it according to my dirty secular point of view.

what do you base the should on? the ought? they shouldn't because it's offensive/reprehensible to a religion? it's religion. it's not objectively true...innate like what you're born with (literally).

all that to say: fight for color, fight for culture, fuck a religion.

kill meh, david hume.