> 98% of the time people are talking about the former

I'd say damn near 100% of those 98% will still cite the constitution, sometimes even crying "1st amendment!" in lieu of "free speech," so I'd say your overall point is wrong. They are basically saying both at the same time, with intent, while still not understanding it.

▲

Joeboy 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

From an outside-the-US perspective, this is obviously not true.

▲

howunfortunate an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, some people are talking about the former but are genuinely mixed up about the latter.

What do you feel would be the good-faith way to respond to such people?

Surely it's not by sidetracking into pedantry about the law, which at the end of the day both they and you know that's not what they're really fired up about.

	▲	sodapopcan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think that any reasonable person who is just misinformed is going to understand, possibly after some time if they are the sort who find it hard to admit they are wrong. Otherwise, if they are going to try and claim that "No, constitutional 'free speech' means I can say whatever I want without consequence from ANYbody" then I don't think there is a good-faith way to argue that.