[yifanl]

If I may use a bit of reduction, isn't the logical conclusion of freedom of speech that truth simply doesn't matter?

If every idea is acceptable, and I cannot face consequences for anything I say, then what difference is there between the statements "Apples are fruit" and "Apples are the square root of 45"?

Certainly, that's not the level of free speech we're at, but all this clamouring for unrestricted free speech makes me almost as worried as the threat of censorship.

[kelnos]

You can certainly face consequences, just the government cannot be responsible for imposing them. I'd much prefer that bad and dishonest ideas be dismissed and the speakers censured by their community rather than jackbooted thugs forcing silence at gunpoint.

It's obviously not a perfect way of going about things, but I think it definitely errs in the right direction.

[yifanl]

It's just that on the scale of the internet, the breakdown tends to be: 3X of people come out in support of your ridiculous idea, X people actively disagree and 100% - 4X ignore it, where X is some small number.

To an outside observer, you must have a good idea, after all, you have so many more people in agreement than detractors!

Which basically makes it impossible for "the community" to hand you any consequences.