In the US, freedom of speech means the government won't stifle you, but the court of public opinion will crucify you for saying the wrong thing. In the linked case, a school principal was framed for being a racist, a fire able offense. Better than being killed by religious extremists, I suppose, but still not great. Thankfully in this case they were able to find the perpetrator who faked evidence, but we have a problem.

The solution is not to ban technology (it's impossible), but to create a more decentralised society where the majority of voters, which is easily brainwashed, doesn't get to dictate the life of the minority. We need to destroy and dismantle all the gigantic entities that ruin our life for the advantage of the few, whether they are the government or corporations ruled by billionaires controlling the government.

We also need to create a better society with less mental illness, where people are not depressed by how unfair life is that they go on and kill kids in school - but I believe if we reduce large societal inequality this will sort itself out over time.

Parents in my circle are already banning social medias for their kids until they're adults - so over time we'll evolve to get better at ignoring all the crap we get exposed to.

That take pretty much throws the shooters' preceding years of anguish under the bus to make a political score. "Ban the wrongspeech!" is a seductively easier proposition than ending youth bullying and ostracism.

> youth bullying and ostracism

... which itself counts as free speech?

A lot of people get bullied in a lot of countries. Few of them turn to mass murder. The mass shooter phenomenon is mostly America, plus a few people who've been radicalized by the same racist discourse on the same message boards (Anders Brevik, NZ mosque shooter).

In quite a lot of cases closer investigation suggests that they were ostracized precisely because they'd already chosen hate.

So yeah, I would call this "wrongspeech" and wrongspeech is already banned.