Speech is either free or not free, there is no middle path.

If you want free speech, you accept the consequences. If you want “regulated” speech, there are consequences.

That’s it. I would argue that the level of satire a society can cope with, is directly proportional to the quality of democracy the society has.

Ignoring nuance doesn't make it disappear. Every developed country on earth regulates speech to varying degrees.

> the level of satire a society can cope with, is directly proportional to the quality of democracy

You're contradicting yourself: First, you deny that there are graduations in "freedom", saying it's all-or-nothing.

But then, a democracy's quality is apparently proportional to its freedom of speech, implying that there are, indeed, nuances.

Free speech is a principal (one that existed before the United States) and a goal. You can have a goal, and operate principally, and still have univerally agreed upon edge cases and exceptions.

> I would argue that the level of satire a society can cope with, is directly proportional to the quality of democracy the society has.

So where does that put America :)

>There's still too many unsolved philosophical questions here.

It's only unsolved among people who don't understand what free speech is.

There are no "compelling answers" because the problem at hand is how to maintain the positive branding of free speech while removing what it means for speech to be free.

Personally I think hate speech should be given a far more narrow and less catchy term to capture actual issues <ethnic> intimidation with ethnic substituted for relevant group or axis. The whole point of hate crime charges: it isn't to make the group sancrosanct but that it isn't just the crime of vandalism/murder but violence against the entire group akin to sundown towns lynching ethnic minorities. That suppression is dangerous to freedom and can be suppressed to its benefit akin to the paradox of tolerance.