Key phrase: "carries with it duties and responsibilities"<quoted text>
...may be subject to such formalities...
I.E.: not free.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
"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."
And thus back we go to the fact that free speech has consequences. It can offend others. It can affect crime. It can affect national security. Etc, etc. Thus, the debate is on the extent to which we can accommodate extreme views without it being damaging on the overall community. The compromise is usually that such views can be tolerated if they are confined to the group involved, such as Sickipedia for sick jokes, or BNP party meetings for their views on immigration.
No crisis of freedom of speech in the slightest. And even if we do look at developments in American free speech, what do we see?
Criticisms of the presidency being considered as potential felonies;
The Patriot Act preventing groups such as Westboro from directly picketing funerals.
You are going down the same route as us whether you like it or not.