Things like death threats being legal would be pretty awful. Husband saying "if you leave me I'll murder you"? Oh well, he's just exercising his free speech, so it's not an issue.

People could defame others, openly call for genocide, plan terrorist attacks etc without consequences. It would be a pretty awful society to live in.

You're looking for the Nazi Bar

I tried it myself with my IRC server. No rules, you can say whatever you want to say, unless the majority wants you out then you get kicked out, just to sprinkle some absolute democracy too.

The end result was basically no messages that didn't contain at least one of faggot, nigger, retard, or at least a very offensive joke of some kind. Like sure free speech is cool, but it was getting very uncomfortable, nobody was interested in joining anymore because of it, and people were also leaving because it's just plain unpleasant. Naturally the majority remained the problem until I had to put my foot down and shut down the server because I just don't want to be hosting that shit anymore.

You can have free speech without being an asshole and shouting it everywhere possible. That is enforced via rules and moderation. It's a balancing act.

The very first thing that would die is truth. There is no way to solve that without "censoring" or limiting speech.

Here are some problems that would just rocket their way into everyone's lives

• Impersonation, made much easier online
• Scams and frauds would no longer be crimes
• Unregulated advertising, effectively the same problem as above (this health supplement will cure cancer and make your dick grow!!!!!)
• Defamation and general reputation killing would happen every 5 seconds
• Some assholes leaving porn playing on public streets and in front of schools, 24/7, because lulz
• Same as above, but with disgusting shit like 2girls1cup, goatse and similars

You can see it in controlled media speech already. Propaganda can say whatever the hell it wants without any repercussions whatsoever until it pisses off the wrong corporation/government.

It's like that, but for everyone.

Any law that prevents me from counterfeiting money is an intolerable encroachment on my right to free speech

Hate speech, You can't forbid it under absolute free speech.

misdirection, lying, etc. yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Lots of lies, hate, propaganda. You couldn't trust anything or anyone. Because everyone would just claim arbitrary counterfactual things. Also lots of spam, doxxing would be legal. Privacy would be eliminated since everyone can spill any beans. I think life would turn into a big shouting match.

Intermediary stages are something like the lot of failed "free speech" platforms online. Or 4chan. Attracts nazis, edgy people, people with behavioral issues and everyone talks like a 12 year old, yells at each other and they use the N-word a lot since that get's them off. Though that'd become unattractive once it's allowed, the thrill is that it's disallowed. Also spamming, saying stupid things and offending people is quite popular.

And Hollywood and any book author would go bankrupt immediately. Copyright is just a restriction on free speech.

There are certain materials such as CSAM that people are not totally immune to. Most people will always find it repugnant, a minority will always be drawn to it. But there is a portion in the middle who do not ever think of it only because they are not exposed to it. Unrestrained sharing of it normalises it and the behaviours that come with it. There are some parallels with addictive drugs. Constraints on free speech are akin to banning cigarette advertising or making heroin illegal. Yes, in principle, everyone should be able to manage themselves well enough that anyone can take whatever they want. In reality, we democratically decide society is just healthier for everyone if certain things have constraints.

Well if it's really absolute then you could legally point a knife at someone and say "give me your money" . You haven't caused physical harm at that point and you're only exercising your freedom of speech.

You could say OK, that's not allowed because you're mugging somebody and that's a threat of violence. But in that case you've carved out an exception for threats of violence and therefore calling for violence against a person or group also becomes not allowed.

What about exceptions for fraud? What about for verbal abuse or harrassment?

And if you're going to have exceptions, then how do you deal with obfuscated language and insinuation? "Would be a real shame if something bad were to happen to your family" - is that allowed? A nice friendly, supportive comment like that? If you can't say that you can't say anything.

Or that's usually how it goes with people defending hate speech or veiled threats of racial violence.

The idea of free-speech-absolutism relies on a top-down model which only examines how a government or platform should regulate speech, while completely ignoring how free a space is depends as much on who participates as who controls.

Free speech is also dependent on the twin stupidities that a "market places of ideas" will produce good ideas, or that debate could possibly settle the most trivial issue.

Free speech and freedom of opinion, in my understanding, are two very different things.

The "free speech" touted by the usual actors is the thing that, if truly implemented, would get most people punched in the mouth. People tend to confuse the possibility of saying anything they want and not being censored for their words/ideas with the notion of speaking without concern and not receiving any sort of consequences.

So, to the extent of my comprehension, free speech would lead to violence.

Freedom of opinion, again, as I understand it, is the recognized right to differ from the socially recognized and established view on any subject but understanding that, regardless your freedom to diverge from it, you are responsible for your words.

As someone once said on TV Tropes, "flat earthing is all fun and games until one of them tries to build bridges".

Imagine someone wants to defend their rights in court against a company that wronged them.
But the company has the resources to publish AI-generated child porn featuring that person everywhere.
And that would be legal.

Doesn't "total free speech" boils down to "the right to lie"?

Are you obliged to tell the truth (or be sanctioned in some way) or can you just lie?

If free speech is understood as: government cannot stop you from saying things, it can become toxic, awful, but no real problems would arise