I think it is going a little overboard to credit freedom of speech to liberalism. Let's just say the rising merchant class didn't want to be under the thumbs of the aristocracy. The same people had little interest in giving freedom of speech to slaves.

In any case, the way to encourage loss it's freedom is to give government more and more power to inhibit our freedoms. There is no such thing as a benevolent government. Obama certainly did a lot to v extend government into our lives. Democrats know best?

I watched the video. A problem with free speech is that it seems to have a lot of potential for confusing the issues, so that people invariably seem to think it means unconditional speech. I think a better term would be fair speech, or, as you suggested in the video, truth speech, but either of those two phrases will necessarily impose conditions on the speech, so that it will no longer be free of restrictions.

fair speech, — John Days

According to whose definition of 'fair'?

According to whose definition of 'fair'? — Wayfarer

That's the catch with free speech. You don't have to consider each example on its own merits. It is free of any restriction. You can say what you want just because you want.

Fair speech is more tedious. Each case must be judged on its own merits to determine if it is fair or not, and if it is not then you can't say it even if you really, really want to.

judged by whom, and according to what? What if the ruling party decides that criticism of it is unfair - otherwise, you're free today what you want. That is obviously not 'free speech' but it is easy to imagine it arising as a consequence of stipulating what constitutes fairness'. So I'm afraid not - you can't qualify free speech that way without undermining it.

↪John Days judged by whom, and according to what? What if the ruling party decides that criticism of it is unfair - otherwise, you're free today what you want. That is obviously not 'free speech' — Wayfarer

No, of course it is not free speech, if the speech is forbidden because it is unfair. That is my point. No one should have a right to unfair speech.

it is easy to imagine it arising as a consequence of stipulating what constitutes fairness'. — Wayfarer

I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting here, but I would say that consequences are unavoidable when considering what is fair or not. That is the essence of justice.

So I'm afraid not - you can't qualify free speech that way without undermining it. — Wayfarer

If the qualification that free speech is flawed in that it does not consider what is fair or true, then it is something which I'm happy to see undermined.

No one should have a right to unfair speech. — John Days

You still don't get the point. What is 'fair'? What the government thinks is fair? What a court thinks is fair? And what will be their criteria? The point about free speech, is that nobody gets to decide whether it's fair or not - if there's someone sitting in judgement over it, then it's not 'free speech'.

if there's someone sitting in judgement over it, then it's not 'free speech'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, this is my point. "Free speech" is a convenient, lazy doctrine which requires no consideration. Without judgment, there can be no justice, which means speech without judgment will always run the risk of being unfair speech.

"Free speech" is a misnomer which appeals to incredulity, pride, self-righteousness, and selfishness. Just because you have a thought, does not mean it is right for you to speak that thought. There should be freedom for the truth to be spoken, but not freedom for untruths to be spoken. Free speech should never be used as a cloak for evil, and yet, by its design, "free" speech provides exactly that medium for evil men. "How dare you repress my freedom to speak to all good people to persecute and kill those with whom I disagree!". All humans have the ability to hate one another, but no human should have that as a right.

I agree with this intelligent young man

Difficult topic. Free speech in USA is pretty much unrestricted, with certain exceptions as you have pointed out. It is so unrestricted that Corporations have the right of free speech. People in favor of
Citizens United based it on core First Amendment (free speech) principles: the right to think and speak your mind, to associate with others and to use your own resources to make yourself heard. Overturning it would be a disaster for free speech, from the conservative point of view. It's a lobbyist's wet dream.

The problems with free speech, I think, has to do with what it allows. Frat boys crying for the lynching of black, fellow students, it legal and it is obscene.

Some countries such as Germany are not so relaxed. They have laws against hate speech and they are especially sensitive to anything related to the Nazi ideology, flags, and other mementos.