zlacker

You're losing track of the conversation. I'm not talking about laws or society or legality. I'm explaining how one person can use their speech to cause another person to choose not to speak, in other words, suppress that second person's speech. This is why it's a paradox: enabling free speech can itself suppress speech.

>>coldpi+(OP)
I'm not losing track of the conversation - free speech is a legal concept, and you haven't written that you're talking about the ideal of free speech. Please do not mistake your inability to express yourself with my ability to follow a conversation.

In case of free speech as an ideal, it's still a bullshit argument. You cannot suppress speech with speech alone. Go on any anonymous internet forum and try to suppress someone's speech by e.g. threatening to doxx/harm them - you will be laughed at, because on the internet there is no real threat of harm. It's always the threat of harm that actually suppresses speech, not speech itself.

That fact that you use speech to deliver the threat doesn't in itself create a paradox.

In context of freedom of movement, that argument would be akin to "free movement is a paradox because you can suppress someone's movement by holding them down". Yes, you use free movement to walk up to a person, but it's not your movement that holds them down.

>>bheadm+m2
Free speech is not a legal concept. The most cited example of speech being used to harm others is shouting "Fire" in crowded theatre and people dying in the stampede to leave. There is no legal protection for doing so. Speech has consequences, sometimes benign, sometimes not.