In those types of discussions and environments I found its best to state your accepted limits of free speech right off the bat. Before the recent anti-free spee

In those types of discussions and environments I found its best to state your accepted limits of free speech right off the bat. Before the recent anti-free speech wave, free speech defenders didn't have to restate their redline exception to free speech: incitement to violence. This was the one limit that all liberal democracies accepted for free speech. Once you share this point of view then at least it's easier turn to discussing why all other limits are dangerous and ridden with pitfalls. Nonetheless, I do think there are somethings alluded to in the sibling comment by dale_glass that needs to be addressed even though I don't agree with many of his assumptions. Namely, the practical matter of the disenfranchised trying to fight a losing war on social media platforms against an onslaught of doxxing, sex tapes etc, and lies distributed to millions by parties with war chests several magnitudes greater than their targets. This has also had a big impact on many elections across the globe in the last decade as well. I have not seen any coherent solution proposed by free speech defenders, and I count myself among them, to this practial problem. And I think we should at least have the humility to admit that we currently do not have a good solution either, and at least make it a top priority to establish one.