Seeing as how if I assault you over your speech

What'd you say I'm just joining in

I'll be punished for it

Once you punch me the argument of free speech is irrelevant I think

I'm conflicted to if it is or not. Because you are delusional and paranoid

You punching me was not speech

All I illustrated was that free speech isnt absolute

And that obviously consequences arise as a result of saying certain things

No but punching you in order to silence you isn't justifiable

You pretending that because sound is quicker than consequences it's somehow "absolute:

Absolute as in free speech isn't always a thing?

?

No

I'm literally saying

We make exceptions for what types of speech we deem appropriate

Or lawful

No I'm not pretending anything.

I.e. incitements to violence, or slander

Both of which are illegal

That's not what I'm saying at all.

And are limited

I see

Why? Bevause they are exceptions

And because there are exceptions

Free speech isnt absolute

You can still say it but you're not devoid of the consequences as I said

And never has

Then you'd justify punching people or censoring hateful Nazis

You'd agree with hate speech law

No

You can't have it both ways

At all

No because that's against the law

Assault is against the law

And it's wrong morally

I think yall are trying to argue different things

At this point

Stop saying its against the law, saying something is against the law doesbt make it anymore correct or morally wrong

Hush

I think so too

Law doesn't somehow justify itself