Out of all the things in this thread, I'll simply rag on this one thing. Whether a slip of the tongue (or rather, fingers) or a miscommunication, it doesn't matter, but this is something that I want to address.

Words may be defined as many different things and thus if I attempt to state, "this is not X," it is possible for both my statement to be honest and align with my truths (i.e. I see it as genuinely true) while being false in other people's languages.

I define language as the collection of semantic and syntactical rules that one uses to communicate, by the way.

---

Stating "I completely am against freedom of speech when" puts a restriction upon freedom of speech. If this is suited in your rigorous definition thereof, then that's fine.

But, I disagree with restricting communication. Restricting what one may/may not communicate leads to a slippery slope. But wait: isn't that fallacious? Yes, yes it is. And what of it? Humans are not infallible creatures, are they? Legislation is not rooted in rationality.

And I fear that restrictions upon freedom of speech will lead to compounding restrictions, closing us off into an echochamber of madness.

---

Feel free to interject with any opposing thoughts.