> free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. As you allude to later

> free has to be intolerant to certain opinions that (should they become too widespread) would endanger the freedoms of others as well. As you allude to later on, this isn't really actionable from an objective perspective. Some hypotheticals: Imagine a society that currently doesn't require seat belts in cars. Any statements that the government should mandate seat belts would endanger others freedom to drive without seat belts, thus all such discussion and advocacy would be banned. Imagine a society which has a law that people may use whatever pronouns they think are appropriate for other people and neither corporations, nor individuals, nor the government may infringe on this. A proposal to allow corporations to make a policy requiring people to use others preferred pronouns in emails? Infringes on freedom and thus cannot even be discussed. Imagine a society which currently has no laws preventing people from copying information and distributing it. Copyright? Not even an idea you can discuss.