When I defend freedom of speech at all costs, I have this perspective in mind.

In one of my recent stories, while having a go at Musk, I did express my unwavering support for the freedom of speech.

One of the commentators (Darren Hughes — thank you) left an excellent response:

When I was younger I thought ‘everyone should have an opinion.’
I also thought ‘everyone should be free to do what they want as long as they don’t hurt anyone else while they do it.’
Then I got older and realised that one must define ‘hurt’. Then one has to draw lines, and then have someone else arbitrate whether hurt occurred.

So my thinking on free speech goes basically, if someone’s approach to life and the world generally causes harm that is large enough that none of us can argue that the point, then that person doesn’t deserve free speech.

I’ve learned that ‘free speech’ is idealistic, and is no more a ‘right’ than any other construct of our society.

For example, a person who advocates that sex with ten year old children is ok because the book of their god say so, really has no reason to be given a voice or any other channel that lets them express their views.

How do we draw the line that decides when we should stop someone speaking? Well that’s something we as a society have to agree on, because without doubt, the idea ‘it is totally ok for children to be shot in schools because it is all part of…