[kylnew]

I'm Canadian myself and it's not my constitution either. If you're going to get mad when people react to that term then maybe ask yourself if you could sway more opinions by finding an alternative way to express the same thing.

To me this is the same as a UX problem. Don't get mad at the user for the way they interpret your interface.

[ac2u]

I don't know where you read that I'm getting mad. I pointed out that your interpretation of what freedom of speech actually isn't anywhere near where it is when it's discussed as a principle, and went on to highlight that that interpretation is often used to shut down conversation.

To say that it's a UX problem is to lend credence to the idea that all interpretations are equal. My assertion is that the narrow legal interpretation is a recent phenomenon that's nowhere near as 'equal' as talking about it as a concept.

Even the article on Freedom of Speech on wikipedia states that it's a principle, and then directs the user to other articles on legal implications of freedom of speech by jurisdiction.

Not that wikipedia is an absolute authority, but it acts as a demonstration that the language people generally use when talking about freedom of speech is that it's a principle and a set of ideas.

The fact that there are legal implications in jurisdictions doesn't mean that we have a UX problem with the word, nor does it mean that we need "new word" in order to talk about it from the angle in which it's most commonly approached anyway.