Also important to consider: When "free speech" truly threatens powerful people, they find ways to shut it down. e.g.:
> "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
and you'd think okay, harmful speech is out... but then you have Brandenburg vs. Ohio
> Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States,[4] Abrams v. United States,[5] Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States.[6]
[...]
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[7] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them.
[...]
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
some use "free speech" as a thought-terminating cliche. for example, they claim to automatically disqualify and reflexively oppose anyone who's position is deemed to be against free speech, no matter what said speech was, but turn out to be much more charitable when the no-platforming involves people paying for airtime and views being silenced by moneyed interests rather than angry hooligans.
> the point isn't whether or not free speech should exist, the point is that inasmuch as it does exist, it's invoked selectively and politically. and saying that well it ought to have been invoked consistently, and ignoring the material reality of how it is invoked, ends up being tantamount to accepting the existing power structures of the society (or at least to the degree to which they rely on this). and therefore, terminating the discussion once someone has brought up free-speech concerns seems dubious.
> "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular metaphor for speech or actions made for the principal purpose of creating unnecessary panic. The phrase is a paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
and you'd think okay, harmful speech is out... but then you have Brandenburg vs. Ohio
> Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2]:702 Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California[3] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States,[4] Abrams v. United States,[5] Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States.[6]
[...]
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[7] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them.
[...]
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
---
some use "free speech" as a thought-terminating cliche. for example, they claim to automatically disqualify and reflexively oppose anyone who's position is deemed to be against free speech, no matter what said speech was, but turn out to be much more charitable when the no-platforming involves people paying for airtime and views being silenced by moneyed interests rather than angry hooligans.
> the point isn't whether or not free speech should exist, the point is that inasmuch as it does exist, it's invoked selectively and politically. and saying that well it ought to have been invoked consistently, and ignoring the material reality of how it is invoked, ends up being tantamount to accepting the existing power structures of the society (or at least to the degree to which they rely on this). and therefore, terminating the discussion once someone has brought up free-speech concerns seems dubious.