Is a broadcast license revocation a form of censorship? (Hint: No, it's not.)
Something I don&#x27;t really understand with people putting free speech as the bedrock of an open society is the contradiction in some arguments during the debate.<p>In one hand, they are explaining that free speech is the most (or one of the most) fundamental right, super hyper important: any speech is very valuable and without a full unregulated freedom of speech, society is loosing something that is very very important.<p>But on the other hand, they are also saying that speech is useless and powerless. They are saying that there is no consequence to speech (or that, for strange reason, the person speaking should be given credits for all the nice consequences and should be considered having no responsibility at all for all the bad consequences).<p>I understand better why other rights (freedom of movement, right to own things, freedom of religion, access to health, maintaining justice, ...) are fundamental. I also understand why some of these are still restricted (freedom of movement: yes but with passport and in respect of property, right to own things: yes but you cannot claim whatever you want to be yours, freedom of religion: yes but without bothering too much your neighbourgs, access to health: yes but if it costs you have to pay, maintaining justice: yes but at some point the jury will decide and may be wrong, ...).<p>I don&#x27;t understand why freedom of speech is such exception that it has no restriction.