Speech is speech. Only speech deemed non-normative needs defending.
Words can’t hurt you.
Tell that to Samuel Paty, his decapitated ghost would be thrilled to hear that.
BTW he didn't die by "words", he died because a bigoted idiot attacked him
He probably would, but do note that he caveated his free expression tremendously, doing everything he could do avoid offending brainwashed kids and their retarded parents.
> BTW he didn't die by "words", he died because a bigoted idiot attacked him
Because people called for his death based on a misinterpretation based on a lie from one of the brainwashed students. That was the speech that killed him, not his own. (And for the record, thankfully, all the pieces of shit responsible are being tried - that includes the brainwashed students that spread the initial lies, their parents that spread them online even further, as well as those that called for his death online, and the students that directed the murderer in the direction of the teacher. )
For better or for worse, words have consequences.
Sorry, but that is absurd. Propaganda has and will kill people. Look at the legions of dipshits who follow Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. Sure, all they do is sit at their desks talking absolute horseshit but it'd be deeply unserious to suggest that people haven't been killed as a result.
The European Union bureaucrats can keep their filters off my packets.
What's the difference other than semantics? When a government decides to "not allow" something, it's often achieved through active enforcement, or threats of active enforcement.
Remember, the EU is the ones that enacted the single most consequentially moronic internet-related law, the so-called "ePrivacy Directive", which has infected countless websites with stupid cookie nags. Governments tend to be pretty stupid when it comes to technology policy; my advice is to shut up, quietly work around it, and be thankful that they aren't any smarter.
Or if we at least didn't call ourselves "liberal" as we're slipping down the slippery slope.
I don’t believe absolute free speech is a sustainable option for societies on the scale of countries. Absolute free speech would invite chaos.
Free speech is not a natural phenomenon. It is an artificial concept created by humans, and thus we have the complete power to define it and choose what it means. Different groups choose differently.