When you say “I don’t think people should be allowed ...”, can you think of a way implement that part such that it doesn’t violate your commitment speech absolutism? I can’t.

In my experience that happens ONLY when one has made a statement that HAS no rebuttal possible in reality so they reach WAS AWAY down into their little ego bag, grab all they have left and pitch out hoping no one will notice they've got...nothing.

You should feel complimented!

You're right.
If this was Twitter, I would probably be calling you mean names. Right now. Yes.

This isn't Twitter...

If it should be allowed in social interactions then it should be allowed on public platforms.

My opinion would be u only support your own free speech if that is the case.

To quote Dr. Peterson in his interview with Cathy Newman, "In order to think, you have to risk being offensive."

The idea of free speech covers everything from simple criticism to hate speech. With the exception of direct threats of or calls for violence, or something akin to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, the rest is and should be protected. If someone gets offended, it's on them to either ignore said speech or to remove themselves from the situation. Any other behavior is, and should be, considered infringement on ones right to free speech.

Your first statement is swiftly countered by the second. Unless you own Twitter. Then do whatever you like to ban name-calling on your platform.

Well if you're being serious, I'd say you're pussy. How ever I think you're being sarcastic.

I think people should, free speech all the way. I do have a preference for politeness, but if swords must be drawn, draw them.

When people resort to name calling it is the easiest way to find out who your dealing with. And when your armed with that knowledge your in charge of letting them have sway or not. "Sticks and stone's"

This is a joke, right?

So who defines "mean names"? If the definition is subjective then that can be exploited/abused/taken advantage of very easily.

Free speech and abuse are not the same things imho. Free speech to me is about discussing any idea or thought, personalising it detracts from it's usefulness and closes down discussions, the exact opposite of want you want with free speech. Criticise the idea, not the author.

Good question. Old quote used frequently on the playground back in my day: "Sticks and stones may break my bones; but, names will never hurt me". People who resort to name calling typically don't have sufficient facts to substantiate the argument in which they are participating. Ignore them.

Nice opinion, but people just gotta be free!??

As long as no direct threats are issued, you could always just ignore them.

I'm very principled when it comes to supporting free speech absolutism, but I don't think people should be allowed to say anything without getting my approval first

Its a sacrafice we make to live in a non totalitarian state
make it or go do your business on fb or something

I will defend your right to voice your desire not to be called mean names to the death, but I will also fight for my own right to call you a butthead equally hard, my friend.