Most societies have decided that some speech should be illegal. The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.
I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal.
A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air.
So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is.
EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Imagine a situation where a person reasonably believes there was a fire (they saw smoke, but it turned out to be a vape or some sort of smoke machine part of the show). They're arrested for the false claim. Others know that it's too risky. Now, when there's a fire, people are reluctant to speak up just in case. It's the chilling effect that can affect speech. We have whistleblowers who are afraid to speak up. And when the means of speaking out or alerting others (ie via email or social media or smartphone) is controlled by a large corporation that may feel threatened...
> The classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre in the absence of a fire.
This is from an overturned US Supreme Court opinion, has no basis in anyone's jurisprudence, yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason.
Oliver Wendell Holmes created that example to support jailing a socialist for speaking out against the World War I draft.
> This is from a dissenting opinion of a US Supreme Court justice
No, its dicta which neither was part of the substantive ruling nor an accurate description of pre-existing law from the Court’s opinion (which was unanimous, so there was no “dissenting opinion”) in a case that has since been overruled and is notorious for having allowed an egregious restriction on core political speech.
> yet keeps coming up as an example of speech that's permissible to suppress for some reason
Because they don't actually have an example of not imminently violence causing non-fraudulent speech that SCOTUS has upheld a ban of. And then when you call them out they'll say "but wait, it's metaphorical". If they had a better example they'd be using it.
Regardless, incitement remains an exception to free speech the world over to some degree. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights holds that incitement to discrimination is prohibited, for example [0].
My point stands, people of most societies globally believe certain speech should not be protected.
I think it is good and healthy to have conversations as to what should and should not be protected speech, but I think that there is this rote reaction that kinda boils down to free speech absolutism. But of course, all the free speech absolutists find at some point or another there is some speech they want made illegal.
A great example of this is in the US where Republicans often outwardly took such as stand when they weren't in power, but recently tried to use the FCC to take a comedian who made light criticism of the regime off the air.
So, silencing speech might not always be the oppressive regime, but it sometimes is.
EDIT: OK, I get the fire/theatre example is a bad one. Instead, consider incitement more broadly. For example incitement to discrimination, as prohibited by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.