This comment, and the response from Anil Dash, both think of free speech in a very limited way that only takes into account what the government is allowed to do

This comment, and the response from Anil Dash, both think of free speech in a very limited way that only takes into account what the government is allowed to do to you. To my eyes, this way of thinking is America-centric. The extremely rigorous protections given by the US constitution make it easy to assume that the constitutionalist view of free speech is the only one that was ever believed in. I believe something different: that free speech is open discourse between people, and that anything which prevents people from talking to each other openly and honestly stands in the way of free speech, be it bigotry or be it no-platforming. To say something and receive "mean words" or "consequences" can usually means that nobody is engaging your argument. Sama gives the example of the controversial physicist, where someone has one good idea and some terrible ideas, and asks whether the good idea should be ignored because of the bad ideas. I don't think this means that the physicist has more important ideas as a whole, but rather that the ideas should be engaged in isolation to one another lest we throw the baby out with the bathwater.