[epgui]

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.

[bondarchuk]

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.

[epgui]

That is not what I said at all. I said that stability could be seen as one of the main reasons _why_ free speech is important/useful.

[bondarchuk]

Let's try it this way:

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?

[epgui]

1.) yes, and I will give as an example “human life”. I believe killing someone is morally worse, and in many situations more detrimental to social stability (although I wouldn’t be sure how to measure that), than depriving someone of their right to free speech.

2.) yes