I was merely pointing out that, if we want to have a discussion about what types of speech should and shouldn't be allowed, we need to be clear with ourselves and each other about what actually constitutes speech, and restrictions thereupon.
I'm having a hard time telling where you're reading in my post a suggestion that (e.g.), because criticism of the Thai monarchy is strictly prohibited in Thailand, we should technologically restrict such speech in the US.
I believe that just because some forms of speech has consequences, that doesn't inherently restrict speech.
What I'm reading of your stance is that since there are consequences for some forms of speech, this forms an implied and mandatory restriction on speech.
The difference is subtle, but it's leading to us talking past each other, particularly when it comes to discussing technology that enables free speech.
Unfortunately, this difference is not something I feel I can resolve on this forum.
Good luck!
Natural consequences are things like if I say "I hate people who wear hats," and I get an internet mob coming after me to defend hats.
Legal consequences would be if I happen to wander into a jurisdiction that has outlawed badmouthing hat-wearers, and I get arrested.
Legal consequences of speech are restrictions on free speech, because they are something humans specifically and deliberately chose and could un-choose. Natural consequences are just that: natural.
It's not that "there are laws against child pornography, which are completely separate from the debate about free speech."
Laws against the production of (actual) child pornography are irrelevant to the debate about free speech.
Laws against its distribution are absolutely relevant, because "distribution of child pornography" is just a kind of speech.
(To be clear, I oppose free-speech maximalism in general, and have no trouble with the idea of laws criminalizing the distribution of child pornography.)