If it is free speech, then by definition it is not limited. The question should be what are the limits of free speech. How far should it extend. No nation allows you to falsely panic people by screaming "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, almost every nation prohibits slander - telling public lies about a person or organization. Given these basic limitations, what free speech means to me is being able to say what other people don't want to hear, including governments. Even the harshest limitations of free speech allow you to agree with the authorities. The real test of free speech is being able to say something that other groups, especially the authorities disagree with or don't like. That having been said, some people tell me that they do not mind having speech limited, so long as they are taken care of and have something to eat. I cannot answer for them. You can start the debate from here.

In my opinion, it depends. For the cases of words that insult others, especially those causing troubles to others, they should be prohibited. I think those words may be marked as illegal. However, sometimes, government has the right of declare unfavorable things that it dislikes, as "illegal". Therefore, under this kind of situation, it is hard to say whether it is right to give a free speech. Thanks for your question.