Established people generally can’t be expected
To favour free speech—King George V said ‘people who write books ought to be shut up’. That was his contribution to culture. Many important intellectual changes have therefore only been introduced by the intelligent not-well-off, for this reason; I’m thinking for example of Faraday. This is the pragmatic argument b2c datasets for free speech; something useful might come of it. But in practice free speech is something of a dead letter—and I’ll give this organisation as an example! So far as I know, in its 100 years, nobody at South Place has ever spoken on the financial resources of the Church of England. With critics like that, establishments can rest easy.
This sort of thing of course isn’t anything special
For example, democracy is more of a slogan than a reality; ‘free trade’ is generally a cover for the expansion of strong economies, and there’s an analogy with free speech, which may be a cover for pushing pornography or Hollywood tripe or what not. Many of the theoreticians of free speech are more restrictive than is generally realised; Milton’s Areopagitica, at least according to Chomsky, hat would normally be considered free speech. John Stuart Mill would not (e.g.) allow the view that Queen Victoria should be assassinated, even by someone conscientiously convinced that it would be a good thing. So generally free speech is conceived in rather vague terms, and I think it’s fair to say nobody has come up with a theory to adequately deal with it.
