A struggle that we can’t (or shouldn’t attempt to?) bypass. We value what we call free speech as a very real and precious - very necessary right. And yet we live in a practical world where things can be said that should carry very grave and deterring consequences for the speaker that chooses to say them. If it were easy to draw a definite line between these two categories [what should be protected and what shouldn’t] then law practice / expertise would not be necessary to help adjudicate such things. But since we value both our freedom to complain and/or speak truth to power, and we simultaneously value at least some protection from consequences of horribly irresponsible speech, we are then obliged to sweat through the struggle of making such distinctions, and necessarily often “getting it wrong” near the edges.
1 Like