>Free Speech was NEVER designed to deal with things like channel saturation and specialized targeting of the human hind brain which happens today.
>They can spam a single message, they can overwhelm normal discourse, and we have learnt that emotion over comes reason regularly. That's how the brain is designed.
ofc the limitations to free speech will define the boundaries such that they permit the above, provided the person doing it is making money from it. Any analysis that doesn't see the obvious way such limitations will backfire is naïve.
The venn diagram containing "mind poison" and "things we can no longer tolerate" have surprisingly little overlap. The most insidious mind poisons uses sensationalism, gamification, and outright psychological manipulation to influence the average Joe, while convincing Joe they are benign or even positive entities. The only things that will be targeted for banning are the ones the mind-poisoning forces have taught Joe to hate.
Joe doesn't need the things he hates banned, he knows how to identify them and he already has an opinion that will put him on guard against them. He has first-pass mental filters against them. If anything deserves to be banned for it's negative repercussions, the prime targets are those we can't/haven't built mental filters against. (Note: This is a very different category than the things we think out political opponents are too stupid to mentally filter). Filtering en mass without the societal standards shifting towards identifying and rejecting those that are actually bad for us will only serve to entrench the status quo.