You have absolute free speech according to the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Does anyone actually think about what this means? Congress shall make no law abridging [abridge: to cut short, to reduce] the freedom of speech, or of the press. This means that you have absolute freedom to speak and to write in the sense that the government cannot have laws which cut short or reduce your freedom to speak and to write; you can say and write whatever you want where the law is concerned. So having any laws that prohibit saying or writing certain things is blatantly unconstitutional.
Now, remember what I was saying above, that you can still use your speech to commit what is otherwise a crime. Threatening someone with immediate bodily harm can be considered a crime, or blackmailing someone can be considered a crime, or committing fraud can be considered a crime, or slander can be considered a crime; all of these crimes are just that, crimes. The criminal aspect of these has nothing to do with “speech itself”, and legislating against these crimes has nothing to do with “abridging speech”. You are absolutely free to use your speech or writing to threaten someone, blackmail them, slander them, or defraud them, but then you will have become guilty of another crime entirely. The speech/press which you used to commit the crime is not the point, has nothing to do with it. The crime itself is the point.
There can be no laws which say you cannot speak or write certain things. But we do have laws which state that if you use your speech or writing to commit another crime, like those listed above, then you will be guilty of that other respective crime. Again, this has nothing to do with interrupting free speech or free press.
Now, the government could pass laws making new sort of things a crime, for example there could be a law that says it is a crime to hurt someone else’s feelings. In that case, you might tell someone to go fuck off and then become guilty of a crime of hurting someone’s feelings (this is basically what “hate speech” laws are). But even this is not a violation of the first amendment, because again it has nothing to do with your speech or your right to say whatever you want, it has to do with how you committed another crime and just happened to have used some speech acts to perform it.
Of course one would think that we would be sane enough not to pass laws like “hate speech” laws. There should not be such blatantly idiotic irrational sort of laws in the first place, especially in a government which is designed to be minimally necessary and to promote and respect individual self-responsibility. But obviously the American founders underestimated human stupidity.
And by the way, the exact same logic applies to the right to keep and bear arms. The first and second amendments go hand in hand. If you use a gun to commit a crime, you are guilty of that crime itself. This does not mean you no longer have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not somehow lose your right to keep and bear arms just because you used your arms to commit a crime, just as you do not somehow lose your right to say or write whatever you want just because you used your speech/writing to a crime. These rights in the Constitution are not limited or restricted, it is quite clear what “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW … ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH”, or, “THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” mean.