"Free Speech" is a universal human value and doesn't have anything to do with the United States 1st Amendment (although that's great), as someone who grew up in the previous Eastern Block all of this shutting down of opinions and restricting speech for "safety" is very familiar.

And it never starts with shutting down any forms of speech that are easy to defend, but gradually builds up to it.

As Noam Chomsky put it:

“Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.”

I don't quite think that 200 people on a Sub called "shitniggerssay" is going to end Western civilization, this kind of speech policing just might given time.

There's two things that I'm pretty sure of:

Anyone who argues against objective journalism is arguing for the right to be able to lie and misrepresent.

Anyone who is against free speech has ulteriour motives.

These are red flags that should immediately start a red warning light blinking in anyone's head about the respective people.

As Alpha Centauri put it so very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE

"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

Good rant about Free Speech BUT...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTUmhr3Oobw

Interesting long lecture on why it is important to protect Free Speech by Steven Pinker/FIRE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdFI6Sda0k

A nice legalistic argument about the horseshit arguments being made in order to limit Free Speech in the U.S.: http://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

What personally pisses me off the most is how some clowns claim that "Freedom of Speech" only comes into play when state action is involved.

No it doesn't. What they are talking about is the First Amendment of the U.S.

The concept of "Free Speech" as an ideal has existed as far back as Ancient China and Greece though, long before the U.S. was a thing and before Christ: http://www.environmentalhistory.org/billkovarik/media-law-coms-400/free-speech-in-history/

It is a basic human right and part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed and adopted by most democratic governments across the world: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.

Article 19 - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Only countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the various U.S.S.R. republics didn't sign at the time, mostly because they had ulteriour motives), everyone that is against the concept of "Free Speech" should immediately be suspect of having said ulteriour motives.

These thoughts and regulations also weren't made up when "The Internet" was a thing, someone should push through a law that classifies places like Twitter, Facebook or Reddit as "privately owned public spaces", because what used to be the town squares 30-50 years ago are now for better or worse places like these.

What you are arguing for here is for the rights of a corporation to ban your speech because you don't like what other people are saying, once it is granted it WILL be used against you.