You are correct, pure anarchy can provide the freest speech - until it causes retribution. Pure anarchy isn't great for society, so we have a of laws that trade

You are correct, pure anarchy can provide the freest speech - until it causes retribution. Pure anarchy isn't great for society, so we have a of laws that trade speech for social benefit. Patent, copyright, criminal, civil. Granted, many of these are broken. I would propose that anarchy is a very undesirable state, so we need laws to protect free speech. Honestly, my heart goes very quickly to democratic free speech. And it's not the same thing. We only had it for a short period of time - the wealthy now have more speech again. Can you really have a democracy when speech isn't democratic? Net neutrality: It's more complex than a monopolistic problem. I would suggest you look more into it.