> why this "reduction of harm" overrides the benefit of freedom of speech There are some strong arguments for harm reduction being a more fundamental human val

> why this "reduction of harm" overrides the benefit of freedom of speech There are some strong arguments for harm reduction being a more fundamental human value than freedom of speech. Firstly, the modern conception of freedom of speech is often seen to be grounded in libertarian thought, in particular the works of Bentham and Mill. Yet Mill himself explicitly stated that these freedoms should be limited in the case where they cause harm to others. Thus freedom of speech has historically been seen as lower priority to harm reduction. Secondly, there are in fact two competing interpretations for "freedom of speech": on one hand the equality of access to a public forum, on the other hand the ability to say whatever you want. I say "competing" because in a public forum without moderation, the tendency is for loud and offensive voices to drown out the discourse, effectively leaving marginalised people without a voice. This is especially potent in modern social media. To me it is similar to antitrust regulations in the market: we put these in place for the benefit of competition, as this typically improve social impacts. However in doing so we are limiting the freedom of corporations with large market share to collude, fix prices etc... . Thirdly, history suggests that it's problematic for ideological values to trump the basic tenet of harm reduction. We see this for example in the Catholic church's refusal to support abortion rights or the use of condoms to prevent AIDs. If we don't ultimately assess the long-term social impact of a "core moral value" in terms of human harm and flourishing, then we risk entrapping ourselves in an ideological morass. > what do you mean by "identity"? ... I cannot understand how this can in principle be "threatened" As an example, homophobic comments are an attack on the sexual identity of homosexual people. It sends a message that they are unacceptable to society due to their inherent preferences, and that they should not express themselves as they naturally wish to. This causes psychological suffering.