"Debatir libertad de expresión" en Inglés
My position is that absolute free speech is more dangerous than protective — that some forms of speech cause measurable harm and require boundaries. What's your view on where the line should be drawn?
I believe free speech should be as unrestricted as possible, because once we grant governments or institutions the power to decide what speech is harmful, that power is inevitably misused. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
That's a principled stance, and the historical concern about government overreach is legitimate. But here's the challenge: when speech is used to incite violence against a specific group, or to spread demonstrably false medical information that leads to deaths, are we really saying the 'more speech' remedy is sufficient — and aren't some harms simply irreversible by then?