everyone can just say whatever they want and suffer no consequences from it
That's not what that means. The corollary to freedom of speech is freedom of association. The answer to "harmful" or wrong speech is opposing speech. Assault, threats, instigation, slander, and other forms of "words as weapons" have never been considered freedom of speech. Not so long ago it would be perfectly acceptable anywhere in America to beat your hypothetical pedo to a pulp if he said those words within earshot, by people who enjoy freedom of speech. "He was endangering our kids." Going further back, the liberal men who wrote the First Amendment would totally understand challenging a man to a duel if he insulted your honor with mere words.
It's one of those philosophical ideals that we've historically considered a good idea, like "love thy neighbor", not something anyone can claim to be an absolutist on. It's also an ideal that only makes sense within a unified culture. That culture will decide the bounds of speech and who has influence and a voice in society.
Sure you're pretty cucked if you say things like "I may find your speech despicable, but I defend your right to speak it!" and let your enemies say whatever they want despite the fact that they would like to see you and your family dead. We're in a culture war. In any war you first seize the means of propaganda.
The moment the right wakes up from their fever dream and realizes they're not living in the 1700s, and that the left couldn't care less about your constitutional rights from 300 years ago, is when the right will start winning.
That's not what that means. The corollary to freedom of speech is freedom of association. The answer to "harmful" or wrong speech is opposing speech. Assault, threats, instigation, slander, and other forms of "words as weapons" have never been considered freedom of speech. Not so long ago it would be perfectly acceptable anywhere in America to beat your hypothetical pedo to a pulp if he said those words within earshot, by people who enjoy freedom of speech. "He was endangering our kids." Going further back, the liberal men who wrote the First Amendment would totally understand challenging a man to a duel if he insulted your honor with mere words.
It's one of those philosophical ideals that we've historically considered a good idea, like "love thy neighbor", not something anyone can claim to be an absolutist on. It's also an ideal that only makes sense within a unified culture. That culture will decide the bounds of speech and who has influence and a voice in society.
Sure you're pretty cucked if you say things like "I may find your speech despicable, but I defend your right to speak it!" and let your enemies say whatever they want despite the fact that they would like to see you and your family dead. We're in a culture war. In any war you first seize the means of propaganda.
Can't disagree with this.