Au contraire, it doesn’t seem clear to me at all that this is the case. In fact, I’d argue that we have traded one set of socially acceptable speech for another set.

Ex: If you have ever watched comedians from 20 or 30 (maybe 30 or 40) years ago, there socially acceptable comedy (towards homosexuals, towards blacks, etc) is dramatically different from it is now (I’m thinking if a Dean Martin Roast in which Johnny Carson implied Red Foxx’s ancestors were cannibals, as well as general comedy towards homosexuality).

Political correctness (particularly on campuses) is another example of severe (but different) limits on speech.

These are merely anecdotes: but so is the flag burning example.

Furthermore, its not clear that ‘freedom’ is merely defined by the presence of absence of law. There are other limits on human behavior (social mores, religious limits, economic limits, etc) that can limit human behavior.

(example: we perceive the Victorians as a bunch of stuffy, uptight prudes, who were afraid to show women’s ankles, and afraid to mention sex, etc etc. That perception is not based on the laws of Victorian society, but the morals of that society. The Victorians were policing themselves, without the help of the State.)

If one society allows flag burning but bans jokes about homosexuals, and the other does the opposite, which is more ‘free’ in terms of freedom of expression?

If one society has laws against public nudity, and another society has no laws, but nevertheless has public mores that make such nudity so socially unacceptable as to be effectively impossible, which is more ‘free’ in terms of freedom of expression?

I’m not saying you are necessarily wrong. I’m simply saying that you are not ‘pretty clearly’ right about the progress of freedom of expression. Yes, I suppose its easier (or less socially odious) to burn a flag than it used to be. But that’s a minor example.

Sk

“should be allowed” might mean different things to different people. To some, it may mean “should the government forbid?” To others, it may mean “should someone have the right to call the other person out [on the offensive behavior in question]?”

I don’t think people should be allowed to spout racist commentary in public. I just think the correct response is to say offensive things about the racists’ mothers or otherwise talk back to them — and publicly. I’d speculate — OK, maybe I’d just hope — that the question “Should the government fine people who say in public things that might be offensive to racial groups?” would get a lower positive response.

A tiny PORTION of ONE of her nipples was exposed.

That’s nudity?

Is using a urinal public nudity too?

What matters is how much such things pollute our minds, or alter our decision making, or make us angry or hostile, or interfere with our ability to socialize and get along with other people, etc.

For your answer see Obama and those who were calling people that questioned his policies racists.