Freedom of Speech (painting)
Image via Wikipedia

It is a serious mistake to use the term “free speech” as a noun – as if it were an entity distinct from “non-free” speech.

This error comes from the premise that certain (politically-correct) ideological speech should not be regulated, but other kinds of speech may.  The origin of idea is the collectivist premise that the sole freedom guaranteed to all individuals is to participate in the democratic process.  No other rights exist, as the actions allowable to individuals (including non-political speech) are to be decided by the democratic process.

According to this ideology, everyone should have the freedom to “have a say” in which politician should be elected, but no one is to be granted any other rights, including the freedom to engage in commercial speech and non-mainstream ideological speech.  Furthermore, this philosophy of “letting everyone have a say” leads to the violation of legitimate rights, via such things as campaign-finance laws and the use of government funds for political campaigns.

This political philosophy is a reversal of reality, as there is no inherent right to participate in the political process.  The existence of a free society depends on the existence of limitations that ensure that only qualified citizens decide on the future of their civilization.  For example, this is why (as a minimum) people convicted of serious crimes should not be able to vote.

In conclusion, the right to communicate with others is derived from the individual’s right to life, and the need to cooperate with others to successfully co-exist in society, not the need to participate in a democratic dictatorship.

There is no such thing as “free speech.”  All forms of communication should be free of coercion.  If you want to refer to the right to communicate, say “freedom of speech.”