Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I mean is that I don't know any community without practical limitations on free speech. The way I see it, we decided as a society that every individual was entitled to fundamental human rights. We also decided in practice that it would be good to put limits on some of these rights, especially when one interferes with another (try insulting a cop or denying the Shoah for example, or insulting the King in Thailand…
Everything you mention is separate from my point, which has nothing to do with free speech. You're view is that practical limitations on free speech are limits placed on a freedom granted you, while I'd say they are infringements allowed on my inherent right. Your notion that this is a small nitpick, or a theory that may be disproved is the wrong way of looking at it. It's two separate ways of looking at the same thi…
Are you implying we should be allowed to say anything, without any exception?