[danudey]

Freedom can include the freedom from harasment, which is a curtailing of speech. That's a liberal idea. The other alternative is 'let people say anything they want and they can just learn to deal with it', which doesn't work with e.g. death threats, harassment, etc. That's why one freedom might be more important than another.

People who claim it's a negative are usually upset that they can't attack, belittle, or harass other people for their own amusement, I've found.

[exclusiv]

The ACLU disagrees with you. You can't have freedom of speech and then decide to put an asterisk on it. That's the paradox of tolerance.

We have laws on harassment and threats. You don't get to suppress people's speech even if they are idiots.

That's a real liberal position.

Believing that people that respect that idea are bullies is both unfounded and unfair.

[leereeves]

> People who claim it's a negative are usually upset that they can't attack, belittle, or harass other people for their own amusement, I've found.

You say, as you attack and belittle people you disagree with...

(...not only people who behave that way, but everyone who thinks censorship is a negative.)

[kofejnik]

>> Freedom can include the freedom from harasment

yeah, War is Peace

or, as they taught is in Scientific Communism classes, "Freedom is a conscientious necessity"

[Cakez0r]

> Freedom can include the freedom from harasment

I would argue that it can't. Freedom is the freedom to do things. "Freedom from x" is just another way of saying "you're not allowed to do x".

[olau]

Problems arise because the world is inhabited by many humans.

One man's freedom may be another man's prison.