As much as it sounds agreeable, the concept of "free speech" inevitably runs into a natural limitation in the case where a nation, authority, power structure or system wishes to continue to exist. If the concept is based on a value or a state of optimism, how do those holding this value respond to a negation of that value? For example, what if a new thought form emerged that was apathetic about societal continuance, did not value existence itself, or regarded "imposed thought" as "morally necessary"? The idea then collapses under moral charges on either side of the coin:
If you do away with it, you are morally undermining the continuity of the society’s orthodoxy. If you allow it, you risk undermining society by empowering its own unhinged ideal.
The idea of free speech can only be absolute if people accept the possibility of the entire structure being undone, since an alternative and convincing thought form could emerge that favors its antithesis. If such a thought form gained traction, then those who originally supported free speech would inevitably want to “make an exception to the rule” once this thought form began being accepted by the public at large.
In reality, then, free speech has always been conditional, and exceptions have always been made. The arguments surrounding it will never end, because of the paradox inherent in tying a value to the preference for a continued state of affairs. If it is absolute, it consents to its own dismantling. If it is conditional, it is, by definition, not what it claims to be. The real debate is not about “free speech” itself, but about where the boundaries around it ought to be drawn. “Free speech” is a language-game concept. In practice, it can never truly be free. The reality has always been: there are certain things you will be dearly punished for saying. What those things are shifts depending on the power structure’s current operations.
Since hierarchy and power are biological realities in human existence, no structure anywhere would ever tolerate “free speech.” Thought forms and expressions that could threaten its control will always be forbidden. No power structure consents to its own dismantling in the name of an ideal. What we call “free speech” is therefore a sandbox—boundaries carefully crafted so that we may live out the drama within them. These battles in politics are fought over realities that people believe they are actually inhabiting. What is really happening is that there is a mandated state of affairs governing survival and behavior, and this state is non-negotiable. As a side show, we engage in a simulation—a surrogate activity designed to psychologically and emotionally appease the negative emotions that the mandates inevitably provoke within us.
Cult figures are elevated to lead each camp into the simulation, guiding them through the drama. They circulate simulated power from group to group, while the overarching dominion of the system contains all the simulations running concurrently. In essence, it diverts the energy of discontent with the mandates, processing it into more resources for itself. While this is occurring, people are still subservient to the overall mandates of the system, while believing they are making headway into some other state of affairs.