Say it were implemented in this world and you could say anything you like (written, spoken, signed whatever) to anyone who can hear/read/see it. What kind of problems could that create and are there any ways to resolve them without limiting that absolute free speech?
Could it even create unsolvable logical errors? E.g an omnipotent god can’t create a stone too heavy for itself to lift. Maybe there are similar things with absolute free speech.
I guess you could argue Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance would be an unsolvable logical error that would result.
But also I would argue that anyone who is calling anyone else a free speech absolutist is misunderstanding what that other person stands for.
What about people who call themselves free speech absolutists?
I doubt that most of them have the same interpretation of absolutists in this context that you do.
I get called a free speech absolutist because I believe that you should be able to say anything that is not a direct incitement to actionable violence. Some would call that absolutist, I would not.
How is free speech in your definition “absolute”?
Out of curiosity, do you consider the sentence below to be a direct incitement to actionable violence?
“It would be patriotic if someone were to stop Person X from enacting their agenda, even if they used force.”
If yes, what exactly qualifies it as a “direct incitement”?
Additionally, would you say it makes a difference whether the sentence above is said by Joe Shmoe vs televised and said by a powerful person with many followers hanging at their every word?