Thoughtcrime
I've been moving more and more to the notion that freedom of speech is an all or nothing proposition.  On a technical level when dealing with systems that protect the transfer of information such as encryption, this is an absolute, because the technology that provides the security (and thus freedom) cares not the content and any backdoor would destroy all integrity regardless of how it is used.  But there has been a notion that laws, rights, and duties do not have the same requirement.  We can build compromises in the laws, so we should be able to create a system where only the stuff that should be banned is banned and all other speech is free, no?  But now I doubt that, as any ban sacrifices the integrity of the entire system.  Maybe in theory it is still possible, but as many of us have seen time and time again, theory and practice differ far more in practice than in theory.From this, I've moved to adopting an ever stricter view of all speech as being free.  I will not say it is perfect as it does have flaws.  But the flaws are a small price to pay to ensure one of the axiomatic rights is defended.  For without free speech, we lose the power to criticize, to discuss, to be democratic.While I know the author isn't regarded quite as highly in the UK and the US, I think the following passage captures the importance of the exchange of information being free.>The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.