[smt88]

There is no society (existing or historical) where freedom of speech was absolute. There have always been consequences for some types of speech.

The US conception of freedom of speech is basically, "Your ideological speech is safe from government censorship, but not from anyone else's." And even that has been unevenly supported by courts over time.

So while your philosophy is interesting, it seems to have little to do with the way societies actually behave.

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

Consequences and freedom are two separate things don't you think?

If you openly state that you hate a certain group of people that will have consequences. I still support your freedom to to so.

[lm28469]

That doesn't make much sense to me. You're not "free" to do X if X is punished by law.

By that logic you're also free to kill your neighbor, you'll just suffer consequences.

[fghfghfghfghfgh]

We are talking about freedom to speak - not freedom to kill.

[nybble41]

There is a difference between social consequences (e.g. ostracism) and legal consequences (e.g. fines, imprisonment, corporal punishment).