Free speech is the right to expose your ideas without fear of persecution, censorship, silencing, no matter the ideas because ideas that are not yours are the possibility to open your mind and heart to a different perspective.

What's the point of exchanging ideas if you want all ideas to look the same as yours, it's cheaper to talk to a parrot or with your self image in a mirror.

It's arrogant to believe that your ideas are perfect and that because other people's ideas are different they're wrong, false or not meeting reality. Maybe it's your ideas that are wrong, false and far from meeting the reality, but how will you be able to know whether this is the case if you don't allow the existence of those ideas in the discourse whether private or public.

We need ideas to be explored and if they are explored alone they can quickly turn into madness.

My point is to give ideas a chance to be exposed without fear of persecution so that the best ones can thrive not just those ideas that we are used to.

It shouldn't be ok to abuse people's right to free speech; not just in public spheres but also in private spheres too. Our culture shouldn't be based on fear. Fear of difference, fear of persecution.

We should be able to expose ourselves with confidence no matter who we are and what we think. Censoring someone is abuse not just of other people but also of yourself.

To the best of my knowledge, free speech (in the context of the usa) has never meant that you are free from social persecution, only from legal persecution. You have a right to say what you like, you don't have a right to say what you like free of social consequences.

It's not that simple. Certain corporate interests have the means to restrict content. This had been an issue for a long time. I'd use the example of the MPAA. They've been successful at shutting out gay and female sexuality from film. However, they're an optional, private organization deciding what happens in their house. Not defending OP or his terrible analogy, but I never bought the "my house, my rules" argument.

> They've been successful at shutting out gay and female sexuality from film.

I don't agree with Hollywood's choices, but for the purpose of this discussion, those groups have been shut out from a market, not a medium. The right to free speech acknowledged by the constitution protects your voice, not your audience.

Now, perhaps in light of the impact of corporations on public discourse there should be some kind of new protection put into place to stop society from being harmed by that impact, but that's something new and different from what "free speech" has been so far and it would be less confusing and more effectively communicated if that distinction were made clear.

Please don't. That entire line of reasoning was ill advised.

Why because it makes you think? Once in a while it shouldn't hurt this bad.

No it was more the casual use of sex assualt to further your argument that I objected to. All the worse, because it made no sense at all.

Might not make sense to you, still received many upvotes before being flagged for unclear reasons.

It was probably the sex assualt analogy

Did YOU flag it?

Of course not, but it was a great idea. I owe whoever did a beer.

I don't find this funny. This is a serious topic.