Whew. Ok, good, we're basically on the same page.
One of the reasons I brought up that disgusting child reference is that tends to be one of the hardest hitting ones in society, and tends to be one that triggers a physical response.
I don't agree with all the government filtering, especially since most of the time they do a half-ass effort and get it wrong anyway. However, I have to say I understand their point of view.
If someone says something horrible, all lies and speculation, but the majority of people accept this as 'true', whether because the person is powerful (rich, famous, other), or because they have a huge following (religious zealot leader, political enigma, etc), and the person they're accusing is some poor joe schmoe, it could have horrible consequences.
Let's assume Joe loses his job over it, and can't find another. He can't support his family, so child welfare is called in, and takes his children away. His wife leaves him because of his inability to keep the family together, and her own failure to keep the children. How many times do scenarios like this happen already, with the current filtered speech. How much worse would it be if it was utterly free?
I understand your viewpoint, and in a lot of ways, I wish for it to be government/political free as well, but as long as people physically react (as in pulling a gun and killing people who ruin their lives with just a few well put words, or other over-the-top reactions), I honestly can't see it happening. Free speech is only good if everyone is on an even playing field. Media and government has already weighted this system against the common individual, so it's an impossibility in the existing environment.
And if joe schmoe pulled the gun and killed the instigator, he would be held accountable for the murder, but based on the free speech idea, the person who pushed him there by public assassination of every moral foundation the person had, would get away scott free. This is also what I mean by consequences. Sometimes, the innocent needs some way to protect themselves, when freedom of speech has no answer for them.
Does that make any sense?