> I think in practice free speech should be limited if it’s clearly damaging.
The problem with that position is, who decides what counts as "clearly damaging"? What if the government and media were extremely anti-vaccine and chose to censor pro-vaccine speech instead, calling it "clearly damaging"?
The problem with that position is, who decides what counts as "clearly damaging"? What if the government and media were extremely anti-vaccine and chose to censor pro-vaccine speech instead, calling it "clearly damaging"?