Well while true free speech is a beautiful ideal which you can experience around a circle with a talking stick in the woods with a bunch of hippies -
The truth is, we live in a world of mob rule and as long as there is a dog that wishes to eat another dog, true free speech cannot exist. It means defence is necessary even for keen advocates of free speech.
The behaviour of @quackwatch is a threat because it mimics a pattern that is repeated across the internet and has capacity to grow simply because it's a behaviour of the greater 'mob' outside of Hive that has mass popular influence. It's like a disease.
We're dealing with psychological jurisdictions. We must defend our jurisdiction to retain our version of freedom for longer.
The ideal of free speech in the way you describe is very honourable but it does not exist on Hive - simply because we all also must participate in the big wide world which is saturated with class consciousness conditioning.
Maybe one day in the future, when our conditioning is based on equality, we can live in this kind of world - or find a place or make a place/jurisdiction where this world can live for longer than just a glimmer.
Until then as long as someone chooses to use a weapon (either physical or psychological) against another the defendant will need to defend themselves or risk losing their own freedom simply by tacit consent.
In every new domain of freedom, jurisdictions are defined by individual and mob rule. Individuals join other individuals to make groups to represent a perspective in a stronger way. Yes, we do have suvereign entities on this platform but at the end of the day they also must get along with other people.
In natural law, we are free to do what we please as long as we harm no others or restrict their ability to exercise their rights. This in itself is also an idyllic world.
The truth is freedom is not free. Real freedom takes an immense amount of work, it is not a button you can just switch on with a rule of law or a piece of code and expect magic. Ultimately the level of responsibility of the individuals in the group decides the definition of freedom that they uphold and this definition sometimes need defending.
Pure unadulterated freedom for everyone is a great ideal, but it only works in a world where we're all on the same page as far as general principles go, or in a new environment that has been 'reset' that has not yet had its jurisdictions and boundaries defined by individuals or groups. Already the jurisdiction or environment called 'Hive' is closing in its boundaries of 'freedom' and that is something that is decided progressively by the actions of the community and by the capacity for self-responsibility of the individuals within that community.
Just by existing (or claiming to exist) in a new environment this creates a jurisdiction of the dividing line between you and that environment by default. As more individuals populate the fresh environment, groups then form from these individuals and the natural outflow is towards an amalgamative principle. To thwart the encroaching inevitability of amalgamation and therefore the loss of 'freedoms', initial boundaries must be set - but this approach only works for a time.
These upheld principles that are defined by a group of individuals called a community stand as a stronghold to defend a definition of freedom for longer than just the regular initial period within a newly defined environment.
Yes, we're allowed to disagree on things - yet we live in a social culture of coercion where individuals seek to gain an audience with a single perspective and do so because there are many vulnerable individuals that don't take self-responsibility of their own principles and mind - instead they leave that job to culture and social trends. As a result, those that seek to coerce a group into a perspective threaten the psychological jurisdiction of others.
We as humanity will continually go through these cycles of freedom to reset, freedom to reset until we take responsibility of our freedom.
Hive is a microcosm of the world.
Total freedom = total responsibility. I've rarely met an anarchist that has actually lived this tenet.
If/when Hive gets more popular - so will popular trends and 'free-speech' (as defined by this group of individuals as listed above) may not have a place here anymore because of the global trends encroaching on this decentralised world.
In that case, we'll make something new again. We'll force a reset by changing the environment with our innate ability to create environments. What will the next hard fork blockchain be called?
Like you seem to have, I have no loyalty to any brand - I have loyalty for the principles. If the brand starts to degrade then for a time we adapt to its degradation until our definition of freedom in this jurisdiction becomes untenable.
We all have a line that we don't let ourselves cross - a limit of compromise that we say 'enough!'
For now Hive is still a great platform, yet as it gains popularity, politics ensues.
I have made this comment into a post - https://peakd.com/hive-181465/@montycashmusic/regarding-the-long-term-preservation-of-a-community-definition-of-free-speech-on-the-hive-platform