Look, I don't want to bust your balls in particular. We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing and I'm sure you're coming from a good place. But surely you must acknowledge that I should not be free to, for example, dox you right here and now (my freedom of speech is overruled by your expectation of privacy and right to pseudonymity); likewise I should not be free to go around telling all your friends and colleagues that in your free time you prostitute yourself to lonely grandmas in nursing homes. And even if, for whatever reason, you wanted to waive these rights, that does not give you the right to decide that I should waive my own claim to those rights.
The bottom line is that there are exceptions to freedom of speech, including morally-justifiable ones. We don't need to treat adherence to freedom of speech as some sort of religion that admits no heresy. It is a generally good idea to distrust anyone who tells you how (not) to exercise your speech, but that doesn't mean you can't independently derive from first principles a reasonable set of self-consistent morals around when it is proper to value other rights above it.
> We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing
I doubt it. Cases in point:
> I should not be free to
> I should not be free to go around telling all your friends
Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech.
This is the main issue, people not speaking their mind. Just speak what you feel. Don't worry, we still have some free speech left. You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty.
> You can voice your disregard for the principles of freedom and liberty.
And when the principles of freedom and liberty come into conflict with each other, how will you resolve it? If you must excommunicate me from the church of freedom of speech for the heresy of believing in the existence of more important personal liberties, then I accept my ostracision.
In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today. Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy?
> In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today
He wasn't "doxxed." Why do people use that word so willy-nilly these days? Reuters did some investigative journalism and found out his identity through public sources. He's not a confidential informant, he wasn't trying to keep his identity a secret, and he was voluntarily interviewed by WSJ anyway.
And even if he was doxxed, it's up to the courts to decide of free speech outweighs the right to privacy. This is one of those edge cases that will sometimes be answered in the negative, and sometimes in the positive.
The bottom line is that there are exceptions to freedom of speech, including morally-justifiable ones. We don't need to treat adherence to freedom of speech as some sort of religion that admits no heresy. It is a generally good idea to distrust anyone who tells you how (not) to exercise your speech, but that doesn't mean you can't independently derive from first principles a reasonable set of self-consistent morals around when it is proper to value other rights above it.