I'm not worried about changing the first amendment. I'm just saying that the notion of not imposing any limit on what anyone can say is preposterous, and I would have phrased it more in line with how it's done elsewhere.

That said, it's not as silly as the second one that promotes weapon ownership

Ironically you'd expect a hyper-capitalist to want to have a well-to-do population, because that creates a better market for them to operate in. Musk being an evil douchebag is essentially proof that the rational actor model is complete bunk.

Speech, in public or publication, should be regulated and somewhat moderated. It seems too many people conflate "free speech" with the license to lie, incite, misinform, and outright manipulate. I miss the days when you thought before you spoke. Free speech has become and unhealthy fetish.

It should not matter what licenses may or may not exist. In a functioning civilisation, one should simply regulate (social)media outlets to make sure editorial responsabilities apply when you publish something, or when you facilitate publication by others.

The Dutch article states that citizens can express themselves freely without institutional intervention, as long as they abide by the law of the land. Which means no slander, no incitement to violence or hatred, and no libel, to name a few things you cannot do. Expression is free within reason.

While I agree that the US constitution has a badly phrased First Amendment, it is somewhat at odds with the fact that incitement to riot, for instance, is illegal and not protected as free speech.

The Dutch constitution is more clever about its clause that talks about freedom of expression.