Help me out here, are you joking, or just retarded? The whole point of freedom of speech is for people to be able to say uncomfortable, unpopular things. You do not actually have it if everything is conditional on nobody getting too upset. You're effectively saying that true and honest freedom of speech aficionados hate everyone actually exercising the right too much.
Yes, freedom of speech exists to protect offensive minority opinions. The founding fathers lived through a petty monarchy that outlawed religious, political, and even academic materials. One of the great examples of freedom of speech is the satire, "A modest proposal" in which Jonathan Swift writes about a fictional government program that would use the meat of children born into poverty to alleviate starvation. It is, on the surface, a totally offensive and objectionable opinion. But it's of course a piece that eviscerates the countless dumb schemes to solve poverty. The responsible exercise of free speech is a careful undertaking by those who care about the outcomes, and those who have something important to say. Free speech is not an end in itself and the right is only abused and imperiled by people who irresponsibly use outrageous profanity, threats, and so on to upset their enemies.
Likewise, someone who negligently discharges firearms in public or pointlessly harms or kills others with a gun is not a 2nd amendment activist, even though they are, in some facile sense "exercising" their second amendment rights. These are, in all reality, the examples that we see every day in the news, repeatedly written into a narrative that is rolling back our liberty. That is why every serious person in the gun community is exceptionally dedicated to responsibility in gun ownership and use, because they understand fully that such an education is crucial for the longterm protection of gun rights. I believe the same level of care should be taken by those who wish to preserve the first amendment. Kiwifarms is only shitting the bed in this respect.
Sure, freedom of speech is threatened by the humorless wokies who would today cancel Jonathan Swift for baby eating. Or the less brainrotted way to see it, the corporations in control of the internet who do not want to risk an advertisement showing up next to anything that could be in some way controversial. These people censored out the word "sucks" in Beavis and Butthead, and I get it. It's tiresome. But ultimately the types of responses I have received here, with the retarded Daniel Larson mindset of using tactical slurs, are in fact a critical and necessary part of that same threat. It's irresponsible, childish, and worst of all it expresses nothing of importance or necessity. Rather than advancing liberty it destroys it. This website is perpetually used as an example with which to create new precedents in censorship. I do not think you need the citations to remember such recent history. And it is historic. The negligent and dumb behavior here may justify decades or even centuries of control over the internet. It's no wonder Null is on the verge of lowtaxing himself. I could not live with myself if I had such a legacy.
I know what you are, and what this community is. You do not love freedom, you hate it. Using speech as a weapon to harm others, especially those who you believe have become too free, is a despicable abuse of liberty.
