[Goose]

When I was in law school, a student at the school decided to publish his notes online for anyone to see or use. Unfortunately, his notes referred to certain demographic groups by slurs that our society broadly considers repugnant. People got loud at him. IMHO, it was earned. That’s an extreme example, but it illustrates a point. Though our constitution guaranteed freedom from government encumbrance on speech, people can and should face consequences for violations of a code of conduct that would be illegal for government to establish. IMHO, the question is not whether there are lines people shouldn’t cross, but where those lines lie.

I think your statement is absolutely correct as written. However, establishment of such lines is IMO very difficult at best, and in "real life", almost impossible. Any group of "like-minded" individuals can easily decide that some particular point of view is unacceptable. If that group is a large majority, or a powerful enough minority, they can locate the line to forbid consideration of contrary speech. The ethos of a free society IMO requires that contrary points of view, however abhorrent to you personally, must be allowed to be expressed. One can't shout down people who express contrary ideas, no matter how "bad" they are. You can disagree with these ideas, you can speak loudly against such ideas, and you do not have to associate with or "like" those who express them. But you must not suppress these ideas by denying their expression.

As an example, for a very long time in our society, the LBTGQ community was very much forced "underground", both in word and deed. In many institutions, the line was set such that even discussing the "situation" was forbidden. Eventually, society evolved to the point that fewer and fewer institutions set the line in a place that forbade such discussion, at least in "the west". This evolution would have occurred much faster and probably with much less rancor if the ethos of society forbade setting such a line. Yes, "most people" would not have immediately decided to support "gay rights". However, if it was unconditionally accepted that people could express such ideas without being shouted down, the opportunity of the population to actually deal with the ideas presented would have been much greater.

As the OP states, this is not a "First Amendment" issue. It is a societal issue. The statement "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is about what "I" should do, not about what the government should do. It is not about what is said, which remains abstract, but is explicitly about the right to say it.

[Goose]

When I was in law school, a student at the school decided to publish his notes online for anyone to see or use. Unfortunately, his notes referred to certain demographic groups by slurs that our society broadly considers repugnant. People got loud at him. IMHO, it was earned. That’s an extreme example, but it illustrates a point. Though our constitution guaranteed freedom from government encumbrance on speech, people can and should face consequences for violations of a code of conduct that would be illegal for government to establish. IMHO, the question is not whether there are lines people shouldn’t cross, but where those lines lie.

I think your statement is absolutely correct as written. However, establishment of such lines is IMO very difficult at best, and in "real life", almost impossible. Any group of "like-minded" individuals can easily decide that some particular point of view is unacceptable. If that group is a large majority, or a powerful enough minority, they can locate the line to forbid consideration of contrary speech. The ethos of a free society IMO requires that contrary points of view, however abhorrent to you personally, must be allowed to be expressed. One can't shout down people who express contrary ideas, no matter how "bad" they are. You can disagree with these ideas, you can speak loudly against such ideas, and you do not have to associate with or "like" those who express them. But you must not suppress these ideas by denying their expression.

As an example, for a very long time in our society, the LBTGQ community was very much forced "underground", both in word and deed. In many institutions, the line was set such that even discussing the "situation" was forbidden. Eventually, society evolved to the point that fewer and fewer institutions set the line in a place that forbade such discussion, at least in "the west". This evolution would have occurred much faster and probably with much less rancor if the ethos of society forbade setting such a line. Yes, "most people" would not have immediately decided to support "gay rights". However, if it was unconditionally accepted that people could express such ideas without being shouted down, the opportunity of the population to actually deal with the ideas presented would have been much greater.

As the OP states, this is not a "First Amendment" issue. It is a societal issue. The statement "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is about what "I" should do, not about what the government should do. It is not about what is said, which remains abstract, but is explicitly about the right to say it.