Update

free_speech.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Freedom of speech means there is no responsibility and absolutely no punishments
 
 The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of speech which you dislike, you don't support free speech**. I.e. speech that you hate does not equal hate speech. Free speech is based on the observation that firstly limiting speech is extremely harmful, and secondly that **speech itself never harms anyone**, it is only actions that harm and we should therefore focus on the actions themselves. A though itself is never harmful and speech is just shared thought; to limit speech is to limit sharing thoughts and therefore **thought control**. Of course thoughts can have good or bad consequences, but we should be focused on learning to derive good consequences from whatever thoughts occur rather than restricting thinking. A death threat or call for someone's murder doesn't kill -- sure, it may lead to someone being killed, but so may for example playing sports. If any kind of speaking leads to people dying, you have a deep issue within your society that definitely does NOT lie in not applying enough censorship; trying to solve your issue with censorship here is like trying to solve depression by physically deforming the depressed man's face into a smile and pretending he's OK. Offending someone by pointing out he's an idiot also doesn't count as speech causing harm, it's just a sad case of someone who is unable to bear hearing truth (or a lie), in which case he shouldn't be listening to people any more than someone with epilepsy should be watching seizure inducing videos.
 
+**How can we possibly claim speech can't harm anyone?** This question in particular is possibly the one most likely to be come up in response to the previous paragraph. Can't we hurt people with insults, spoilers, lies, doxxing etc.? No, but a bad society can make it so that others get punished for your speech, that people FEEL hurt by speech or that they unnecessarily hurt themselves in reaction to speech. Speech coming from others is just a stream of data without any warranty or guarantee of accuracy or truthfulness, it should be treated as such and can always be simply ignored. Should someone receive information KNOWN to potentially be false but subsequently treat it as truth and get hurt in result, in principle he did the same as if he took a gun and shot himself. Getting "offended" by insults is just a result of chimpanzee [culture](culture.md), insults don't physically hurt anyone and can simply be ignored. But what about doxxing for example? [Doxxing](dox.md) itself doesn't hurt anyone, it's the shitty society that raises lunatics who attack anyone whose whereabouts they get to know. Should we be allowed to breathe freely? Imagine capitalism ten years from now establishing breathing quotas for households and any extra breathing resulting in extra fees in your family's rent. If a child of a poor family refuses to do daily breath holding to save on rent, it hurts its parents who will have to work more in order to pay the extra money. Would you say breathing hurts others? No, but it can be made to look as if it does so that it can be regulated, monitored and made subject to [business](business.md).
+
 Some idiots (like that [xkcd](xkcd.md) #1357) say that free speech is only about legality, i.e. about what's merely allowed to be said by the law or what speech the law "protects". Of course, **this is completely wrong** and just reflects this society's obsession with law; true free speech mustn't be limited by anything -- if you're not allowed to say something, it doesn't matter too much what it is that's preventing you, your speech is not free. By the twisted logic of "free speech with consequences" you always have free speech, even in North Korea -- you aren't PHYSICALLY prevented to speak, you just have to bear responsibility for your speech, in this case a bullet. A bullet is a bullet, be it from a government gun or a drug cartel gun, a gun pointed at one's face always makes one not want to talk, no matter who the gun belongs to. If for example it is theoretically legal to be politically incorrect and criticize the LGBT gospel but you [de-facto](de_facto.md) can't do it because the LGBT fascist [SJWs](sjw.md) would [cancel](cancel_culture.md) you and maybe even physically lynch you, your speech is not free. It is important to realize **we mustn't tie free speech to legal definition** (also considering that a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) aims to eliminate law itself), i.e. it isn't enough to make speech free only in legal sense, a **TRUE free speech plainly and simply means anyone can literally say what he wants without any fear at all**. Our goal is to make speech free [culturally](culture.md), i.e. teach people that we should let others speak freely, even those -- and especially those -- who we disagree with.
 
 **Free speech extends even to such actions as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.** In a good society with free speech people don't behave like monkeys, they will not trust a mere shout without having a further proof of there actually being fire and even if they suspect there is fire, they will not panic as that's a retarded thing to do.