Why not

Speech is not to be met with violence because it's on a list of what you can't say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot3LLjVF9Cs

the only good communist song

@ApplicationBot have you ever heard of the Paradox of tolerance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

If you regulate my speech I'll fight for it so if you try to forcefully shut me up I'll fight back through all the power I have

Im not tolerant of intolerant people

Yeah ok so

You are always allowed say what you like to me so I expect the same respect. Otherwise I will fight you for the right.

@Calle71 I'm against the state or any organization silencing speech because they have it on a list

Im against anyone silencing speech.

Speech is to be met with speech

And lack there of will be met with violence

Yes

It will be always met in certain cases with violence

Lucky I dont belong to the British government

Otherwise I;d be an activist against them for violating my speech

If you talk shit I'll beat you up is completly justifiable

State beating you up is not

I'm against objectively deciding what speech you can use violence against and which not

Or if someone talks shit to you just ignore them. No need to beat them up

It's free speech both ways

Which is?

Free speech means the state can't shut it because they have it on a list

Individuals are free to shut your speech if they wish

Sure

shut my speech as in ignore or prevent me from speaking?

No

Neither?

You are free to do anything

And I am

I'm for unlimited positive freedom of every individual

You are free to speak and I am free to beat you up if I want to

You beating me up isnt a positive freedom.

Not for me anyway

I should be free to beat you up

No state to tell me I can't

No, that's assault and many people can die or get seriously injured from that

Doesn't mean I will however

So?