I would like to believe that freedom of speech is possible and should be at the base of human rights. Unfortunately, we can find so many instances, so many necessary censoring of speech that I'm having a second thought, if freedom of speech have a chance to be sustained unobstructed in any society.
For example, should we implement freedom of speech in elementary schools and kindergartens? On one hand this is when we should teach, from young age, the new generation about the fundamental right of freedom of speech. On other hand, would any parent agree for their children swearing like plumbers and to talk openly about sexual positions, for example?
Should we absolve all bullies from verbally abusing victims, based on their right to freedom of speech? Mind you that some victims committed suicide over being bullied.
Should we acted on Hitler's words only, not waiting for his actions, we would have saved the world from WW2.
Consequences of telling all the truth to our boss are quite substantial, and it makes us not to exercise our freedom of speech.
We also don't express our full freedom of speech in our courts of justice, not to be in contempt of the court. Ironically these courts stand on guard of our freedoms, and we swear to tell the truth. One can argue that freedom of speech needs to be limited in courts not to interfere with court procedures, and rightfully so. But here goes our freedom of speech.
I guess the question is what price we are willing to pay for freedom of speech?
We always face the consequence of our speech, in form of action of others to our words. The consequences, precisely the hurtful ones, will always limit our freedom of speech. Either self censored by our compassion, or by our protective laws.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that, IMO, no law or government should be able to arrest or detain someone simply for the words coming out of their mouth......unless maybe when one is making a serious threat to someone's life for example and there is a very real, implied sense of true danger and intent.
That's why I think the people using those words have to be on the verge of taking serious violent action before the law can step in
with a few exceptions. As you said our speech is limited depending on the atmosphere. Such as in a courtroom, and in a school for obvious reasons.
As for bullying, IMO it depends more on the setting. In any school, the authority of that school is in charge and yes they do have the right to censor the speech of the students as most minors do not have the full constitutional rights as an adult, for good reasons.
But if an adult is verbally abusing another adult or if it is done by a student toward another student but is outside the school, then, despite the negative impact it has on the victim, IMHO, no government or legal authority can simply detain or stop someone for verbal abuse.
Again I am speaking in a matter of legality, not morality. Morally the parents can step in or if the harassment carries on into school life then the school authority can step in too in the case of minors or students.
Morally there will always be hurtful consequences to free speech but no government or law of the land has any right to tell citizens what they must believe morally.
Legally, no law or government should be able to stop total free speech.
As for WW2, Hitler and the nazis had already become violent long before the war ever started. It happened gradually. Yes., his speeches and propaganda incited many people but they started out by physically attacking Jewish store owners and even in their early days, the Nazi party had street riots against rival nationalist parties simply for control.
They were already violent from their inception, long before it ever got to the point of actual war and genocide.So, based on that, they could have been stopped early on anyway, before WW2 started, because they were always committing violent acts from the beginning.
As for how people choose to use free speech is up to the individual. Legally every citizen should have the unlimited right to free speech, IMHO. But if whether or not someone wants to be totally honest with their boss ,for example, is simply a matter of personal preference, not free speech in the legal or constitutional sense.
They still have the legal right to be honest and talk to their boss if they so choose. And that is how it should be.
Whatever consequences may come of it, has nothing to do with the right to free speech itself.
Their maybe cultural or personal and even moral reasons why a person may not choose to exercise the right to free speech, but again its up to the individual's free will and no government or law should ever be able to stop someone from exercising their right to free speech.
There should never be a legal reason why a person cant exercise their right to free speech, with some exceptions, like the examples you give- as in a courtroom or a school setting with minors, who have limited constitutional rights anyway.