Is Freedom of Speech Ethical?

[TinyDave]

Well, I can't, in the way you put it.  There are many things you can't say.  I can start with shouting "fire" in a crowded building.  But it goes further than that.  

Slander and libel are better, more legal, examples.  Libel and slander are both punishable.  Libel is written; slander is printed.  And while distinct, they are crimes that "freedom of speech" will not protect you from, if challenged.

Libel is defamation in print of a false statement.  You have a right to an opinion, but not a false public statement.

Slander is a false spoken statement that harms an individual.  

So basically, you can call someone stupid or annoying orally or in writing, but you can't say or write something provably untrue.

Every "right" has a limitation.  Such statements are subject to civil penalties.

In the UK slander and libel can be tried in civil courts, just as you mentioned, but the criminal offences are:-
Incitement to commit a crime, spoken, written, signs, displayed with IT, and so on.
Provocation to commit unlawful responses, slightly different to Incitement.
Harassment with speech, writing, signs, displays with IT, etc.

Freedom of speech/communication cannot include any of the above, here (UK)

It depends on whether it is in the public interest or not in the UK. And also whether it is reasonably believed to be true. Civil liability is on the balance of probabilities in the UK.
You could, for example, say that Piers Morgan or Katie Hopkins are hateful bigots. I am in no way suggesting that they are, you need to make up your own minds.
This example would be in the public interest, as broadcasters opinions influence on a national level which could sway public opinion.
Proving that statements have swayed the public to act in any certain way is difficult.
Proving deliberate incitement of a crime is even more difficult as the threshold for criminal responsibility is beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless someone were to say something like "We should kill all the xyz because of ABC" reasonable doubt could be afforded to the accused as it is free speech.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"You can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater or 'AMBULANCE!!!!!!' in a crowded law school."

[eider]

In the UK slander and libel can be tried in civil courts, just as you mentioned, but the criminal offences are:-
Incitement to commit a crime, spoken, written, signs, displayed with IT, and so on.
Provocation to commit unlawful responses, slightly different to Incitement.
Harassment with speech, writing, signs, displays with IT, etc.

Freedom of speech/communication cannot include any of the above, here (UK)

It depends on whether it is in the public interest or not in the UK. And also whether it is reasonably believed to be true. Civil liability is on the balance of probabilities in the UK.
You could, for example, say that Piers Morgan or Katie Hopkins are hateful bigots. I am in no way suggesting that they are, you need to make up your own minds.
This example would be in the public interest, as broadcasters opinions influence on a national level which could sway public opinion.
Proving that statements have swayed the public to act in any certain way is difficult.
Proving deliberate incitement of a crime is even more difficult as the threshold for criminal responsibility is beyond reasonable doubt.
Unless someone were to say something like "We should kill all the xyz because of ABC" reasonable doubt could be afforded to the accused as it is free speech.

The criminal laws about communications which include 'incitement to commit criminal offences', provocation, victimisation, harassment etc do require evidence of proof before any conviction can be given, and to protect the innocent that proof has to be sound, of course.

But if you stand up at Speaker's Corner and chant anything that suggests incitement or provocation to harass, victimise, or commit any crimes against anybody, then just see how quickly you'll get removed, or detained, or arrested.

[TinyDave]

The criminal laws about communications which include 'incitement to commit criminal offences', provocation, victimisation, harassment etc do require evidence of proof before any conviction can be given, and to protect the innocent that proof has to be sound, of course.

But if you stand up at Speaker's Corner and chant anything that suggests incitement or provocation to harass, victimise, or commit any crimes against anybody, then just see how quickly you'll get removed, or detained, or arrested.

Criminal liability in this example relies on the proof of intent, "mens rea".
I can say whatever I want at Speaker's Corner, provided there is no intent to incite, and not be detained, or arrested.
If I am ordered to be removed, I would ask what legal authority is being exercised?

[Cavebear]

Intent matters.  You stand in a public park and demand a change in the way the Govt operates and that is very protected... But you cant sneak around evading the voting laws and claiming everything is fake without evidence.

And deliberately making it harder to vote is the opposite of "supporting democracy".  Democracy means taking actions to help more people vote.  Freedom of voting is the same as freedom of speech.  "Voting" is how The People express political speech.

When voting is restricted in any way, that is a restriction of the populace's ability to "speak".

A significant part of the Republican Party is dedicated to preventing the populace to vote.  They have spent great effort to eliminating the very concept of "the will of the majority". That has to end.  NOW!

[Rhythmcs]

If that ends they end, and they know it...so...fat chance. Meanwhile, they accuse you of killing them, and whip their constituency up into killing you.