It would be helpful if you could enumerate the ways in which his/her statement was naive. It seems to be a relatively logical conclusion that being told or influenced not to say something is restrictive of innate freedom of speech, no matter how seemingly innocuous a reasoning established social or cultural norms are (ie. don't criticize the recently deceased, it's tactless).

You're right, it is a very naive statement. But it's also a very serious one; the freedom to speak one's mind is the entire topic of this discussion, and I am of the opinion that freedom of speech is so important that it should be a reserved right, inalienable and indelible.

That was a good essay. I liked it. What conclusions did you want me to draw from it?