Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
With true free speech has to come an understanding of when and when not to use it. But you can't legislate that. It must be voluntary - especially in a world where a whisper can reach a million people in an eye blink.
Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.
Free speech gives us the ability to react vigorously with effective arguments and expose the weakness and misdirection of the other side's claims.
Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.
It's always easy to get people to condemn threats to free speech when the speech being threatened is speech that they like. It's much more difficult to induce support for free speech rights when the speech being punished is speech they find repellent.
Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech.
Free speech is a valuable commodity, which we preserve and protect, but there quite rightly is restriction on free speech in the best interest of the good order of the community and common sense.
Free speech includes the right to not speak.