Important correction, it is incorrect to call a value an assumptions (or premise). The difference is that in logic declaring something a premise implies it is universally true, while value means that it is true to me. In formal logic you can demonstrate that argument is fallacious by demonstrating that a premise is not true. Values work differently. I am not trying to sneak in moral relativism into this discussion, I am just making a point that I view free speech as a core value, but there might exist other people that do not share my values. This doesn't invalidate my values or make my arguments based on values wrong. You are correct in pointing out that I believe that free speech should be a universal value, but it is pointless to try to pin me down by examples of others not sharing my values.

With this in mind, prior to responding I will restate your argument for clarity:

"You start off with a premise that free speech is under attack. Then, you want people to be somehow immune from the resulting social consequences."

Yes, free speech is under attack. No, I do not want people to be immune from criticism.

The flaw in your argument is that you are intentionally conflating social consequences and censorship attempts. That is, you are proposing that since censorship is a type of consequence, I am opposed to all consequences.

I do not want people to be immune from all consequences. For example criticism is a valid consequence. However, I do want people to be immune from actions intentionally designed to chill or prevent speech.

A hypothetical example to illustrate this point, if I state an idea that you find offensive, loudly criticizing me in response is fine. Trying to get me banned from the forum is not fine. The key difference is that criticism allows me to continue participating in the future discourse, and perhaps gives me opportunity to change my mind. Getting me banned simply silences my view without rebuking it.


[Linked Image]