Nothing, that's the problem of decentralization. I know this is the common usage of free speech, but I don't think it's good-- I would rather people call it ju

Nothing, that's the problem of decentralization. I know this is the common usage of free speech, but I don't think it's good-- I would rather people call it just 'Only not illegal speech' or something. Free speech, in the original sense, is only the government's guarantee-- speech is not something that the government will write laws for. In private society, though, it's laughable to consider that that was ever the status quo. The open free speech market is a seriously toxic thing. Who wants to be forced to have their house be a free speech zone, where someone can always shout that you're a pedophile, they screwed your mom, look here for ISIS forums-- no one in real life would tolerate that. It's just a ticking time bomb of liability, going off every other week. In the real world, in every society, people have cultures and mores to decide what speech isn't tolerated. Some are obviously more draconian than others, but insisting that everyone regress to 'Only-not illegal speech' just seems to create such a miserable, angry world.