OT: Old Mrs. May's fudge shoppe

[SolSigns]

Seriously, are we actually agreeing or disagreeing with each other here?

I disagree with you. On this issue, you seem confused.

people should be able to use whatever form of wording they like

Genuinely don't know what you mean by this. What "form" of wording is contentious?

I used the words I chose to use (which wasn't "absolute freedom of speech" anyway)

You said:

we shouldn't sacrifice free speech for all (which is either absolute or it's nothing) because a tiny percentage would misuse it.

So, are you for absolute free speech, or for no free speech at all?

Also, how can we sacrifice “free speech for all” when we don’t have it? You are aware that there are many laws about what can and cannot be “said”/expressed/disseminated in public? You are aware that legally “speech” includes many kinds of expression including pictures and video? Isn’t it right that people can’t publish whatever they want?

Maybe now you’re trying to argue that we can say what we like in private, which is true to an extent. But you started out by arguing with Sid for BoJo’s right to “express” what he liked in a public newspaper column – which is not the same thing.

You also seem confused about what the ‘straw man’ fallacy means, but you probably do know what the ‘slippery slope’ one is. I’ll spell it out anyway: if BoJo can publish what he wants, so can Abu Hamza and friends of Jimmy Savile. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s really what you want.

Freedom of speech has to have limits for the common good. Setting the limits is a serious business. It's often contentious and often political, but absolute free speech is a recipe for disaster.