Perhaps there's a distinction he and others fail to make most of the time - free speech is generally good, but being free to listen and speak to those who want

Perhaps there's a distinction he and others fail to make most of the time - free speech is generally good, but being free to listen and speak to those who want to listen might be sufficient for a free society, and a more fundamental type of freedom? Almost all discussions of free speech are about speech as something you do to others, not as something you engage in voluntarily with others. Of course, if it really were a taboo then all online interaction with strangers would be right out. P.S. Can anyone from the UK explain the meaning of the phrase "bloody Croydon!"? I probably encountered it from Douglas Adams I'm guessing.