I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most re

I think something really important that doesn't get discussed very often when "free speech" comes up is that there really are categories of speech which most reasonable people expect and perhaps even prefer would not be 'protected' In a sense it always comes up. Without sticking my neck out to say what reddit should or shouldn't allow, I simply want to point out that principled positions only count when they're uncomfortable to uphold. We wouldn't be having a conversation about free speech in the first place unless the conversation has already turned to the topic of sweeping away uncomfortable speech. If someone wanted to make a convincing argument about speech which should be 'unprotected' there has to be a conflicting principle, or it's just lip service to the idea of "free speech" (because it's generally recognized as virtuous and they don't want to be seen as opposing it). "Fighting words" are unprotected in so far as they represent incitement to an immediate breach of the peace. Other principles raised to carve out exceptions to free speech should be similar in the obviousness that it's categorically not about suppressing ideas.