[ohbtvz]

Supporting free speech doesn't mean that you support absolute free speech without any limitation. We all have a lot of rights, and exercising those rights can impinge on the rights of others. Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right?

I don't know in English, but in French we have a saying: the freedom of some begins where the freedom of others ends.

[fein]

I assume it would be obvious, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Free speech in the USA is (supposed) to mean the freedom to do political speech without state ramifications (I'm not sure how well this constitutionally works for private companies). This obviously doesn't count credible threats, telling people to riot or be violent, etc.

Basically you have a right to offend people short of targeted harassment.

*This is obviously an oversimplification but I'm giving the HN the benefit of the doubt here, however misguided that may be.

[Taywee]

> Free speech in the USA is (supposed) to mean the freedom to do political speech without state ramifications

I hear this a lot, and it's not actually true. That's what the first amendment means. The first amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not define the concept of free speech as a whole, it just protects a form of it.

It annoys me when people assert that being silenced by a private entity doesn't actually limit freedom of speech, because they argue that the freedom isn't being restricted unless a government is doing it. I'm not necessarily for unrestricted free speech (because it often ends up being loud and obnoxious, and often silences other speech when it becomes a shouting contest, especially on the internet), but this very specific interpretation that the US Constitution's first amendment actually defines free speech has always bugged me as something logically unsound.

[happyopossum]

> Why would freedom of speech be somehow special and trump every single other right?

Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others.

[icedistilled]

>"Because speech doesn’t cause physical harm or loss to others."

Nope, that is trivially wrong with the obvious counter examples being slander and libel.

[int_19h]

Which is why they're excluded from the definition of free speech pretty much everywhere?

[morjom]

Couldn't "psychological harm/turmoil" fit somewhere in there aswell? Verbal abuse etc.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

generally speaking that would fall under harassment.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

In the US we have the saying "your rights end at the tip of my nose" to express much the same thing.