>It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit. Many philosophers of free speech and first amendment jurisprudence

>It's like saying you need heavy censorship in order to have free speech. Complete bullshit. Many philosophers of free speech and first amendment jurisprudence would argue that some restrictions on free speech for the sake of free speech could hypothetically be permitted. The law does this all the time; it restricts action in order to help guarantee the freedom of action of others. The most basic formulation of this is in the harm principle, in which it is recognized that harm should not be permitted because it interferes with others' rights.