Well, your statement was quite general :) My point is that free speech without impact is vastly better than no free speech at all, which is why I don’t see how

Well, your statement was quite general :) My point is that free speech without impact is vastly better than no free speech at all, which is why I don’t see how it even makes sense to ask that question. I think the key point is that free speech is the basic mechanism the public has to make societal or political changes. If speaking or protesting against the government is a crime, it means the public is lacking the basic mechanism to even propose such changes, let alone make them.