This article is too long and says too little. The real debate about free speech is about finding the right balance between harms caused by speech and harms cau

This article is too long and says too little. The real debate about free speech is about finding the right balance between harms caused by speech and harms caused by censorship. It's about the distinction between highly protected forms of speech like journalism, ideas, and protests/strikes, and undesirable speech such as incitements to hatred, slander/harassment, spam, and predatory speech. As a society you have to figure out which kinds of speech is deserving of broad platforms (talks at universities, interviews on national TV), which kind of speech should be downranked but not banned, and which kind should result in outright de-platforming or even prosecution. The "speech is violence" rhetoric just means that speech has actual consequences and that we should look at these consequences instead of unthinkingly taking an absolutist free speech position. Free speech is never an absolute, and as anybody who has spent a lot of time online knows, there cannot be free speech without moderation (i.e. censorship).