> without freedom of speech: which is the right of every man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the right of another. And this is the only check which it ought to suffer, the only bounds it ought to know.

The latter part is often ignored from free speech absolutists but only as long it’s about their free speech.

There are two sorts of free speech absolutists. Those without power whom merely want to be heard and those with power who would not be limited in its exercise.

> First, the zealots today are no longer the progressives on the left – liberals, socialists, trade unionists. Instead they are predominantly on the right: campaigners against immigration, Brexiters, the enemies of Woke, aka Anti Social Justice Warriors, or ‘Anti-SJW’, as they proclaim themselves on their black T-shirts, available online for £15. This switch-around isn’t entirely new.

It has already switched back, now that the right wing is in power. It used to be that you would get your talk cancelled for having views that challenged family values. Now you get deported for having views that challenge the war machine.

My stance on free speech is now that we need hate speech laws. When fascists get into power, the law will not save you from their potential desire to censor you. Allowing them to propagate their hateful ideas before that only serves their cause. It's the paradox of tolerance [1].

And indeed, those who claimed to be "free speech absolutists" before nov. 5 2025 are now the ones cheering on burning books and deporting citizens without due process. Truth is, they just brandished "free speech" everytime someone rightfully pointed out how bigoted and hateful the lies they spouted were, and never believed in it as a philosophical ideal. To them, this "free speech" aestethic was always a means to an end, taking advantage of a weak opposition that believed too much in the power of institutions and law.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance