freedom of speech

I agree. Let's have a full and frank discussion.

Anybody who argues for any curbs on freedom of speech will have their posts deleted. Fair warning.

I couldn't agree more on the matter of "hate speech". I really think this is the most ominous development right now, and needs to be strenuously resisted.

I wonder how long a forum like this will even be possible?

When it comes to freedom of speech as an idea, there are two extremes I dislike:

1) The libertarian idea that your freedom of speech is only curtailed if the government actively stops you and persecutes you for your attempts at self-expression. Therefore no amount of censorship by private actors, such as newspapers and TV stations and internet platforms, is actually an injury to the principle of free speech. SJWs make the same argument when they "no platform" conservative speakers.

2) The opposite extreme; that a television network that cuts out nudity or violence from their broadcast of a movie is violating artistic freedom, freedom of expression, etc. By this view, curtailing anybody's freedom of expression in any situation is an infringement of free speech.

I think the reality must lie between these extremes. Free speech can't mean you're allowed to say anything anywhere, but it also can't mean that only the State silencing you is "real" censorship.

This is the key question, and unless people wake up and start paying close attention to all legislation and regulation being done in the name of "human rights" that is linked to notions of "hate speech," the future looks very bleak.  We can have lively discussions about Roy Foster, GAA, and the revival of the Irish Language till the cows come home, but if we hold the "wrong opinions" we will be doing it all from inside a re-education camp.

What do you mean by the point of a right? What is the point of the right to life, or any right? I would argue rights are inherent to the dignity of the human being. At some point they can't be justified in terms of a wider good and have to be justified purely as goods in themselves.

Free speech seems to have been around a long time. Apparently, in the theatre of Periclean Athens, anybody could be lampooned on the stage, and everybody was, even the most powerful. The problem with taking a survey of the past is that, as you say, it's a series of peaks and troughs, zig-zags, etc.

And what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabouts. You can be as blasphemous or as obscene as you want today, but you daren't criticize anyone's sexual proclivities or make a joke about certain ethnic groups.

I do think free speech is a right, but not an unqualified right. My own view is complicated. I would treat serious discussion of ideas in a different way from entertainment and artistic expression-- I would be much harder on the latter.

I would say yes, but not an unqualified right. (If there is such a thing as an unqualified right.)

Well, if you don't think freedom of speech is a right, then you won't mind when the State stops us from expressing our views as Catholics, such as opposition to same-sex marriage.

I suspect you actually do think freedom of speech is a right. If you were put in prison for criticising the government, for instance, you would probably be irked.

An unqualified right means a right that is not qualified or balanced by any other considerations, such as the public good.

Ok, well, what if it's not a religious matter? What if you were prosecuted for calling a transexual "he" instead of "she"? Or disciplined in a university or workplace for so doing?