Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
But I can be more specific. Even granted some individual's views on speech and expression, if that individual claims to support free speech in one breath and restricts it in another with the precise justification that they are preserving freedom at large or have identified some correct area of qualification in the matter, then I call them inconsistent/a liar.
One can use different angles (e.g. semantics) to defend the apparent inconsistency.

Here's one: If you wish to defend freedom of speech, issuing laws to help in this defence would seem OK. If some utterances by some people are likely to reduce the freedom of speech of some other people; either because these other people become fearful and censor themselves or even stay quiet (attacked or not attacked), or even killed because of those utterances - then one can argue that outlawing these utterances makes for a freer speech in sum.