Update

free_speech.md

@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ The basic principle of free speech says that **if you don't support freedom of s
 
 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. 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**, i.e. it isn't enough to make speech free only in legal sense -- keep in mind that a [good society](less_retarded_society.md) aims to eliminating law itself. Our goal is to make speech free culturally, i.e. teach people that we should let others speak freely, even those -- and especially those -- who we disagree with.
 
-Despite what the propaganda says there is currently no free speech in our society, the only kind of speech that is allowed is that which has no effect. Illusion of free speech is sustained by letting people speak until they actually start making a change -- once someone's speech leads to e.g. revealing state secrets or historical truths (e.g. about [Holocaust](holocaust.md)) or to destabilizing economy or state, such speech is labeled "harmful" in some way (hate speech, intellectual property violation, revealing of confidential information, instigating crime, defamation etc.), censored and punished.
+Despite what the propaganda says **there is no free speech in our society**, the only kind of speech that is allowed is that which has no effect. **Illusion of free speech is sustained by letting people speak until they actually start making a change** -- once someone's speech leads to e.g. revealing state secrets or historical truths (e.g. about [Holocaust](holocaust.md)) or to destabilizing economy or state, such speech is labeled "harmful" in some way (hate speech, intellectual property violation, revealing of confidential information, instigating crime, defamation etc.), censored and punished. Even though nowadays just pure censorship laws are being passed on daily basis, even in times when there are seemingly no specific censorship laws and so it seems that "we have free speech" there always exist generic laws that can be fit to any speech, such as those against "inciting violence", "terrorism", "undermining state interests", "hate speech" or any other fancy issue, which can be used to censor absolutely any speech the government pleases, even if such speech has nothing to do with said causes -- it is enough that some state lawyer can find however unlikely possible indirect link to such cause: this could of course be well seen e.g. in the cases of [Covid](covid.md) flu or Russia-Ukraine war. Even though there were e.g. no specific laws in European countries against supporting Russia immediately after the war started, government immediately started censoring and locking up people who supported Russia on the Internet, based on the above mentioned generic laws. These laws works on the same principle as [backdoor](backdoor.md) in software: they allow complete takeover of the system, but are mostly unused until the right time comes, to give the users a sense of being safe (unlike with software backdoor though the law backdoor isn't usually removed after it has been exploited, people are too stupid to notice this and governments can get away with keeping the laws in place).