Defending freedom of speech

I ended a previous post with the following sentence, “How one separates those that are speaking from the position of parrhesia or manipulating 'freedom to speak out' for their own ends is not easy”. Commitment to principles and their expression can create negative consequences and opposition. As Wikipedia says (see entry), exercising the right to free speech carries special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions when necessary for respect of the rights or reputation of others or for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals.

Donald Trump has recently signed an executive order that is entitled 'Restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship'. Having experienced an ideological attack myself on my views about psychiatry (see eg, my BMJ letter) I agree that freedom of speech should not be manipulated for ideological reasons. But free speech can't be about having the right to say whatever one wants. In fact, Trump could be said to be using the promotion of free speech for his own ideological ends. 

Governments clearly have a right to engage with social media companies about controversial content, as has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court (see article). Although I have exercised my right to block Elon Musk on X, very few people probably do. I used to try not to be oversensitive about blocking people but now tend to do so with those that seem to be promoting violence, whereas Trump has pardoned violent Jan 6 offenders.