What if I had a sonic cannon that could blast a house off it's foundations? Is a DDoS attack speech? No. No one argues that in good faith. Stop justifying your conclusions by redefining speech to something else. There are actual, reasonable arguments for the limitations of speech - "speech is actually just any noise and people can play noise really loudly and that can cause hearing damage" is not one of them.
Your argument is, abstractly, "Isn't censorship also speech?" My response is, no, censorship is not covered under free speech. This is a faulty supposition that many people who are generally opposed to free speech hold. Preventing people from hearing someone speak is self-evidently the most anti-free-speech act it is possible for a private individual to do.
That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that for you to stop me from shouting over your speech, you would be limiting my speech. I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. Limiting my speech is censorship.
Free speech absolutism is a paradox. The only way to resolve that paradox is to limit speech that limits the fundamental (so-called "God-given") rights of others.
>I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things.
You could argue that, yes. What you can argue doesn't matter. I can also, equally, argue that I am free to DDoS someone I don't like, because there is no technical limitation to my doing so, and that anyone attempting to stop that is inhibiting my free speech or free use of whatever hardware I control. Where does anyone argue that? Where has anyone argued this version of free speech that you are presenting the fallacies of? I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice. And if this free speech absolutism is a position that no one holds, why are you arguing against it?
>"I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
This started by you giving the example of an order to kill someone as being free speech that so-called free speech absolutists would logically protect. But the thing that is actually a problem, in that example, is that you are (presumably) using whatever existing power you have to unlawfully kill someone. The fact that someone could literally say those words to cause that effect in no way mandates that free speech advocates defend literal murder.
> And if this free speech absolutism is a position that no one holds, why are you arguing against it?
Musk is a free speech absolutist, by his own admission. His followers are likely similar.
> I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice.
It's a contrived example, but despite that free speech absolutism allows for it.
>Musk is a free speech absolutist, by his own admission.
I don't think his concept of free speech absolutism matches yours. Given the other things I've heard (something about moderation teams with diverse voices, and this news about deboosting) it seems more likely that you're arguing against a strawman here.
>It's a contrived example, but despite that free speech absolutism allows for it.
Does the free speech absolutism you're arguing against allow for sonic cannons? Doxxing? Lighting burning crosses on people's yards? If so, again, it's pretty far away from any form of free speech I've ever heard a free speech advocate actually... advocate for. I'm asking this seriously; can you point me to anyone honestly arguing for that as a social ideal?
Edit: In fact, this topic roused some curiousity in me, so I went to look up what the actual philosophical roots of "free speech absolutism" were. The first result[0] is rather creepily relevant, discussing Elon Musk's bid on Twitter and his self-admission as a free speech absolutist. Very relevant to your arguments are the following passages:
> Free speech absolutism has its roots in philosophical theories dating back to the 17th century, but it was first discussed as a defined principle by the 20th century free speech advocate and philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn.
> His writing focused on the United States, and much of his thoughts were put forth in the context of American constitutional law. In fact, the very idea of “absolutism” – that there are certain absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or religious matters – is an American idea. In theory, a free speech absolutist would be extremely hesitant (or refuse) to draw a line between free speech and hate speech in most contexts, and in all contexts where the speech could possibly be considered political speech.
> This commitment to self-rule, in Meiklejohn’s view, justified and formed the basis of the constitutional right to unfettered free speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and warranted its absolute nature, meaning it should not be weakened or watered down to bend to other social values.
> However, his understanding didn’t extend to private speech about issues not of public concern. So, while your right to publish your views about a social issue is safeguarded, even if others may take offense, Meiklejohn believed that you can’t rely on free speech protection to shout casual abuse at someone on the street. (emphasis added)
So yes, even the original, definitive free speech absolutist disagrees that your example is allowed by the principles of free speech.
Then, while you aren engaging in free speech, you are also engaging in stalking/harassment. If you stopped following the person who, presumably, doesn’t want you following them, you are still free to say whatever you like at any volume.
Free speech isn’t just “I can say whatever I want.”
It’s also “nobody can make me say something I don’t want to.”
And then also “I don’t have to listen to anything I don’t want to.” (You are here.)
And finally, “I can’t stop other people from listening to what they want to hear.”
This is the point of “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody js around to hear…” Speech is communication which is bidirectional, it can’t be free unless both sides are free to engage or not.
