When it comes down to it, I don’t think any of those people you are mentioning ever actually supported free speech - just the idea of it before it came to a head.
Absolute free speech would imply even a lack of self-censorship. I think if you deeply analyse communication you sort of realise that it's fundamentally built on censorship. Censorship is a core communication filter function. Getting rid of censorship absolutely is actually absurd.
Remember we're talking about absolutism here, obviously we shouldn't actually be concerned with self-censorship, but it is an obstacle to ABSOLUTE free speech.
It seems to me that people are asking for tolerance of speech at all costs. I don’t know if Free Speech ever came with that built in.
When I think of somebody who supports free speech, I think of somebody who:
- Speaks in a less filtered way
- Brushes off people saying something offensive about them
- Brushes off people saying something offensive about other people
- Doesn't support the regulation of speech at any official level
I don't see supporting free speech as an inherent good by the way, I see it more as something nessecary to counteract the even larger issue of the "tyranny of the majority", and this is essential on more levels of society than the governmental level. Even amongst a group of peers or colleagues consideration must be given to allowing free speech.
However I will mention that the "paradox of tolerance" posits that if you don't censor those who would censor others, society will end up with more censorship. So there is an argument that somebody who is totally in favor of free speech, EXCEPT the free speech of those who censor others, is a more advocate of free speech than somebody who is for free speech in all situations. This is arguably game theoretically better than the former strategy.
For example, what would you do if one person successfully convinces a crowd (through speech) to hang/kill their opponent? Given that the opponent would subsequently be dead (or maimed), how would they exercise their right to free speech?
I can certainly agree with the paper, but not to the point of absolutism. The logical flaws in free speech absolutism betray very weak logical prowess, which would presumably mean the individual is deficient in cognitive ability.