>I see free speech and democracy as a kind of way or protecting society from local minima: a reality check to ensure we break out of nasty patterns. I'm not sur

>I see free speech and democracy as a kind of way or protecting society from local minima: a reality check to ensure we break out of nasty patterns. I'm not sure it's working very well with respect to large "private" entities. It's interesting to me that you would say that, because if you look at the US in the late 19th and early 20th century when the country had significantly more powerful private entities than we do today, it was the press that helped to change public opinion and decrease their direct power and control. I believe free speech is necessary so that speech advocating lawless action doesn't become necessary. By that I mean that advocating for a change in policy or type of government should be allowed and be open as the alternative is significantly greater violence. The revolutions in France and the US began with open words and attempts to change policy. When that started to be punished, the eventual result was not people changing their minds, but instead others going underground and violence increasing at a dramatic pace. Many other revolutions and rebellions, failed and successful, began the same way. That's why people advocating the overthrow of government need to be allowed to speak openly and be heard. They can then be reasoned with and if necessary placated.