Should freedom of speech be limited? That is a tough question to answer. If it was limited all ideas that threatened somebody's way of thought would be suppressed. On one hand, it would really hinder evolution because new ideas would not make it into public view. New ideas are sometimes threatening, but they are and have been the reason humans are still alive today. Without change, we would still be hunting mammoths. On the other hand, some ideas are threatening and only bring about a downward slope in evolution. If nobody went after Hitler for persecuting the Jews, we could be in a completely Nazi society and government right now. Change should not come about by killing millions of innocent people. For some changes, though, people need to die, but these people are either not innocent or die willingly and on a much smaller scale. .
In the book, The Giver, all free speech is limited and everyone is forced into an easy-to-control unit. There is happiness in that. Those people never experienced all of the emotions involved in free speech, so they found happiness in their small conformist lives. Humans can find happiness in no matter how we live our lives. That brings truth to the old adage, ignorance is bliss, because they did not have to deal with all the emotions that go along with free speech. .
Life is meant to be lived to the fullest. Freedom of speech should be limited, but not to the point where it destroys someone else's right to live life as much as they possibly can. Maybe our generation has a few freedoms that we have yet to discover that could take us to a whole new plane of happiness. Maybe all it needs is that one person to threaten our current ways of thinking that will trigger these new freedoms.