I happen to think that free speech is a human right. It amounts to the right to communicate. It is impossible to have effective democracy without free speech. B

I happen to think that free speech is a human right. It amounts to the right to communicate. It is impossible to have effective democracy without free speech. But democracy is not the source of free speech rights. As we are born, we have the right to make sounds and communicate basically just like the animals which do so freely. It is only taken from us by force or social pressures (that probably also require force). I also believe in the fundamental right to self-defense. It is not anti-social to resist physical threats, including the use of physical force against aggressors to the full extent necessary to protect one's self. Why are these natural capabilities and tendencies given the status of "rights"? It boils down to the simple belief that we each have the right to try to be happy and have autonomy. We can't have a free society if people are not allowed to express negative emotions. Likewise, nobody would stand for a civilization that did not grant individuals the legal protections required to be physically safe. That means that the right to self-defense must be respected. We happen to have legal procedures to protect people against defamation and certain other kinds of speech, but the speech in question must be provably false or somehow violating intellectual property and the damages must be significant for anything to be done about it. I think these exceptions can easily get out of hand to the point where free speech is a distant dream. Anyway, I guess the right to free speech has always relied on people to be wise and tolerant enough to not censor each other. Philosophizing about how much censorship is justifiable will not matter if a majority of your neighbors are willing to censor you over random subjective issues like how you make them feel or whether they think your opinions are correct.