Expression of strong support for freedom of speech typically leads to counterarguments like the cases mentioned by nostr:npub10000003zmk89narqpczy4ff6rnuht2wu05na7kpnh3mak7z2tqzsv8vwqk and nostr:npub1t3ggcd843pnwcu6p4tcsesd02t5jx2aelpvusypu5hk0925nhauqjjl5g4 — situations which most people, including the original poster, would find unacceptable (for example, threatening or sexually harassing someone's children). Faced with such cases, the original argument usually retreats, resulting in the conclusion that completely unrestricted free speech is impossible. In my view, this conclusion generally stems from profoundly statist biases.

Specifically, it arises from the illusion that vice can only be corrected through the coercive force of a violent monopoly — the state.

However, genuine freedom of speech can only be consistently and logically achieved through rigorous defense of private property rights. Notice how problematic examples are almost always set in "public spaces" — but the very existence of such spaces is the root of the problem.

Imagine a fully free society. In this world, there is no such thing as a "public space." Every piece of land is privately owned, and access is granted solely at the owner's discretion. In such a scenario, offensive or insulting speech? There would be no need for laws restricting speech. Instead, basic common courtesy — polite requests to refrain from offensive remarks — would suffice. If someone ignores the landowner's request, they become, by definition, a trespasser. They will then be treated as an unlawful intruder — subject to removal or other responses appropriate to illegal entry on private property. Ta-da! No law restricting freedom of speech, yet vice is corrected?

We must abandon the illusion that only state violence can correct immoral behavior.