Or: how do we "solve for" the people-that-want-absolute-freedom-of-speech problem? Because that's the other side of the coin. Some mild restrictions on what can or cannot be said in public environments is not tyranny.
Tyranny is on a dimmer switch.
It's not about truth. It's about stability, safety. How do you keep a bunch of pretty hard-core fascist propagandists from stirring up the people without any repercussion? A government needs control, or it loses its legitimacy. I think that's at least implied in the main text of the constitution.
A million Iraqis probably have the same question.
Preserving the ability of the public to organize and publish freely is probably one of the foundational elements of the solution to keeping a populace from getting so hijacked. The problem is that the incumbent state and military fits your description much better and more often than any upstart group.
You may disagree with those limits but they've always been there.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Meanwhile, cultures differ, and people outside of the US may well see their own governments' drawing the lines elsewhere, for instance banning of hate speech and Nazi propaganda, as "absolutely necessary."
Yes it does. That's what subjective means.
Obviously, many people refuse to accept that their personal opinions on political matters are anything less than absolute, immutable, objective fact, but that isn't relevant, because refusing to accept that doesn't make it, or you, objective.
>Even mathematicians have differed about proofs.
Politics isn't math. There is no equation or statement that can quantify the American model of freedom of speech, nor prove it correct, much less more correct than all other models, in the same way as E=MC^2 or Pythagoras' theorem.
You cannot have absolutism in a well functioning country.