Thanks for clarifying your view - I get where you’re coming from now. I’m not conflating society and government so much as recognizing that in most real-world societies, the line between the two isn’t always so clean. Governments often represent collective values, even imperfectly, and they’re the mechanism through which rights are codified and enforced.

You might believe in total free speech, but I’d argue that most societies - even the most liberal democracies - accept some limits to protect others’ rights or prevent harm. If speech truly had zero consequences beyond social disapproval, that could leave vulnerable groups exposed to abuse. So, societies have a right to draw those lines differently, based on their own values.

Anyways, since you can’t be civil (i.e. you’re a fucking asshole who can’t argue without ad hominem attacks), I’m done communicating with you.