The entire point of "freedom of speech" is to protect the rights of the person you hate when they say things you find the most dangerous or offensive. You don't need to create a "right" to allow nice people to say nice things to other nice people.

Sure, there are type of speech that I find very damaging to society, but they still have to have the right to speak their mind, or we open a Pandora's Box of troubles when we try to decide which types of speech are "bad".

This really is the real test of any society that describes itself as "free". Do they allow their enemies and troublemakers their equal right to speak? Or is Freedom Of Speech de facto only enjoyed by the classes that already have the power to speak, while others are prevented form having a voice? In the later case, "freedom" little more than marketing.

Also, remember that allowing someone the freedom to speak does not require us to give them a stage or an audience.

Those who are "vulnerable" may choose to either stop participating in speech that offends them or learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

Attempting to restrict speech is not the answer, has never been an acceptable answer, and will never be an acceptable answer.

> learn not to be vulnerable to such speech.

It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered.

The old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is a lie. Words can severely hurt people, and even if they don't break their bones directly, they probably will incite people to actually break their bones.

> It's rather difficult to come back to life after you've been murdered. I can't recall the last time I heard about words murdering someone. Incited murder/suicide? Perhaps, but at that point you're just shifting blame around to try and make a point.

In the case of suicide, the "victim" would have had any number of chances to disconnect from the source of the speech that was hurting them.

> they probably will incite people to actually break their bones In the case of murder/assault, well, last time I checked that's already a punishable crime.

Your argument does not further a case for the repression of free speech.

Those limits are - by definition - set by the powerful and at their most effective on the powerless, because the ability to control what kinds of speech are allowed in a way that affects large numbers of people is in itself a huge form of power. If anyone claims otherwise, you should take a good look at their motivations.

You don't make sense.

And empowerment > infantilization

Why doesn't what I'm saying make sense?

Absolute freedom of speech is tyrannical. It gives the privileged enormous power to do harm.

Freedom of speech must be limited so it is a power against the powerful, not the powerless.

Protecting people from hate speech and incited violence is not "infantilisation". It's basic human rights.

Are you not familiar with the Intolerance Paradox?

All true. But FoS is also a normal behavior used by people everwhere, to make themselves clear. The guy standing on a stump in the park, complaining about his sister-in-law has the same right, for the same reason. Its not just a political-action-tool. Its supposed to be a human right, like life and liberty.

Yes. A human right that, like others, has limits where it conflicts with other human rights.

Its different to be fired by somebody for what you said, and for the boss to be fired for what he said. You have to see that difference.

Only tyrannical totalitarians despise Freedom of speech. So that they can rule with impunity. The concept of hate speech cannot co-exist with freedom of speech. Either it's all acceptable or it means nothing. That's it.

Acting like people cannot control themselves or react reasonably to unsavory opinion is infantilization. The incitement argument doesn't apply to free speech because it isn't just speech. It's speech plus action & it's the action that hurts. The only human rights that exist are the ones you give yourself.