You say free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. Then you imply that the purpose of the tool is to push the balance of power toward the individual. The goal in pushing the balance of power to the individual is to have an equilibrium between the individuals' and the government's power. This equilibrium is characterized by an increase in stability. It seems fair to summarize this as "free speech is a tool that serves the purpose of increasing stability".
You conclude: "It's possible for something in a given situation to be more important than free speech." I think it's implied here that this "something" is (an increase in) stability. If stability is more important than free speech, it implies free speech should be restricted in order to achieve stability. In other words, censorship should be applied in order to achieve more stability.
You are making a false equivalence here: Restriction of free speech != censorship.
Every single Western democracy on this planet restricts free speech in exactly the way parent described - as a trade-off between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the souvereign [1]. Even the US has a long list of restrictions to free speech.
The question is not whether to restrict free speech, the question is where to draw the line.
You're making a false assertion that attaching consequences to some speech is censorship. No one can prevent you from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. There are however post hoc consequences for doing so falsely, as doing so is very dangerous to others.
Even then you have the opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law. You may have been thought there was a fire in the theater but simply been mistaken. That's why laws include clauses of intent.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.
I think we are in complete agreement, but for some reason you want to avoid using the word "censorship" in the case of a restriction of speech that you agree with (a restriction you agree with). Sure, free speech has limits. Beyond those limits, censorship is applied. At this point it's just an argument over the definition of words, not very interesting.
The “something” in question was not referring to the increase in stability, though it might lead to it. Also, and most crucially, I did not say, or intend to suggest, that “censorship improves stability”.
Free speech and stability are not in competition with each other. They’re different categories of things.
Please help me out a little and try really hard to not interpret what I said in the worst possible way.
Well, you said one of the things that could be more important than free speech is stability. You did not directly say "censorship improves stability", but if you say that stability is one of the things that can be more important than free speech, it strongly implies free speech can sometimes be restricted (i.e. censorship) to reach the goal of stability.
I don't feel like I'm interpreting your posts in a particularly negative way. I'm just trying to be explicit about the kind of tradeoff you're proposing. If you find yourself flipping your stance once the flowery rhetoric is translated into basic, actionable language, someone is getting fooled and it's not me.
1. Do you, or do you not, think that there can be something which is more important than free speech and which leads (among other things) to increased stability?
2. Do you, or do you not, think that if this something is more important than free speech, the consequence of this is that free speech can be restricted for this thing?