Morality and legality place LIMITS on free speech, generally for the sake of security, privacy or property. But they are just that, LIMITS on free speech.Stephen St. said:Sure, empirically that is true. You have a factual ability to speak and that ability is factually limited by the circumstances. But that isn't a freedom - a freedom is something you are not just able to do, but specifically allowed or entitled to do according to a set of rules, which can be moral or legal. If it were otherwise, we'd just call it the ability to speak and could forget about the term "freedom" altogether.
That, as with all things, is a matter of context.Stephen St. said:Do I get to call you an idiot if you say something I find obviously wrong?
Let's look at current events: During this whole Sarkeesian crap there has been a lot of harassment. And while a lot has been said about the narrative that implies everyone on side a) is the kind of terrible, scum of the earth, dirtbags who'd send people death threats or worse, there has been no argument over the fact that the people who DID make said threats are in fact terrible, scum of the earth, dirtbags. That has been totally acceptable.
I mean, Godwin's law is brought up because Hitler and his part have become such an ubiquitous short hand for "terrible, and irredeemably awful human beings whose opinions are worthless." And there has been little push back against that characterization.
Not all insults are immoral. As to which are which, well that depends on situation. And may change with time. Moral today can be immoral tomorrow and vice versa...