Gregory's Server
@nycta Nobody in the whole world older than 12 defines free speech as being free of consequence.
Free speech is an agreement between the state and the people, prescribing that the state has no right to use violence to coerce you into saying something or punish you for your speech.
In other words, you ought not to be legally imprisoned or killed for your words alone.
This is it. No more, no less. All the other consequences that might come - are still there, they are intrinsic not to just speech, but the act of doing. You do something - you will be affected by it. Saying something is the same - you will be affected by the consequences of what you're saying. *The state* isn't allowed to prosecute you for it, though. But people just can do whatever they want to respond to it. Up to and including give you a beautiful pony as a gift, or clock you in the teeth.
@drq that's a definition of free speech constructed in terms of state-public power imbalance.
Now abstract from informal narrative nuances such as people, state and legality, define it in terms of general power struggle over narrative, to arrive at a natural conclusion of complete impossibility of its existence due to logical contradiction. A logical contradiction due to Newton's Flaming Laser Sword specifically.