> I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without lim

> I'm just going to come out and say something that I've had a hard self reflective time coming to the conclusion of. I don't believe in free speech without limits. It’s a perfectly reasonable position, and IMO the correct one. But speech has always been limited: incitement to violence, criminal conspiracy, libel, blasphemy (in many places), “public exposure of private facts” (damaging other people’s legitimately private life), revealing classified material ... and so on. I think what people fail to distinguish is the free exchange of ideas - what totalitarian countries suppress - and the right to say whatever you like even it it’s to do deliberate harm for selfish ends. The paradox of tolerance shows us that to have freedom we can actually use there must be limits on what we are free to do. Organising and inciting an insurrection to overturn an election - what effect does that have on the speech and political rights of those who spoke for months to win the votes of the newly elected President? To respect the freedom of those people shouldn’t we restrict the speech of the former, when it is shown to have become dangerous?