There seems to be no exhaustion when it comes to folks arguing the premises of free speech, or more appropriately, the premises to the right we have to free speech; and rightfully so. It has been more than 250 years since the group sailed across the sea, endured hardships and hard work, shared and explored the land, water, and food, and were ultimately, as of the time of writing this, vilified by a select bunch who have pronounced themselves more wise than these learned individuals; it borders on the actualization of travesty.
A much forgotten principal among these who vilify the founding fathers is that when one deconstructs the reason for the right to freedom of speech (the first amendment) it is ultimately useless without espousing it to the right to self preservation: the right to self defence. Without the ability to defend oneself, it does no good to be able to dissent; a better way of saying it would probably be: it becomes difficult or nearly impossible to offer a dissenting thought or suggestion to any who deems themselves the authority on a matter. Moreover, in order to secure, for a group of people, the right to defend themselves, the right to self preservation must also be afforded.
There can hardly be enough emphasis placed on the importance of the right to self preservation without the mention of self governance and self regulation; there is no stand alone value in the right to free speech if the speech is forever incoherent jibberish, that is not to say that the speech that would be incoherent jibberish should be protected or permitted but instead the question should be asked: how, among all the jibberish, would one find a way to communicate or argue for the right to speak freely?
Here there is a primary difference between the set of folks who would fight to death for the freedom to speak freely in an open discussion in a society like America, and those who wouldn't, that is where this meets reality. Charlie Kirk has correctly observed that there are nearly no conservative campuses where a liberal speaker is banned, the same cannot be said for "Progressive" institutions.
Interestingly, there is also a misconception about the right to free speech, that misconception being: the newly appointed right to be heard. This is not a right. No person is entitled to having the unappointed authority to reduce the options of another to hearing them speak; one may ask, prompt for attention, pay for attention, begin, or a host of other options; force is not an option.
Free speech is one of the fundamentals of a truly free society, and therein, if there is to be any who truly values the right to speak freely, it would be the ones who have been silenced; silenced by autocracy, by dictatorship, by pseudo-intellectualism, by authoritarian regimes, and by the voices in heads.
Thanks for reading.