you havent answered my question. i suggested that the concept of free speech is an illusion based around a (non-consensual) matter of degree. if you were hosting a dinner party and one your guests started talking about something which annoyed the rest of them, you would probably ask them to drop it. this is not a breach of freedom of expression, as the guest is still entitled to express themselves in a more appropriate setting.
so your claim about free speech is wrong, and on the basis of mater of degree, also hypocritical. what offends you doesnt necessarily offend everyone else. what you dont find offensive might offend others.
personally, I find alot of conservative opinions not just offensive but actually disgusting. i dont criticize the authors for their opinion, but if i ever met any of them in a pub i wouldnt want to sit around and drink beer with them. if i spent more money in the pub than the person making all the noiise, and you were the publican, what would you do? an astute businessman would way up all the variables, and conclude that if over a long timeframe the net gain from keeping the noisemaker there is negative, then the best outcome is to ask them to drop it.
off topic slightly, the world was a much more pleasant place when we didnt talk religion or politics at the dinner table. i have plenty of mates who i know are diametrically opposed to me in their views, but we just dont talk politics and we get on brilliantly.
i have no respect for anyone who does not believe in "live and let live". for all their flaws, the general philosophy applies to liberals more than conservatives, so i have more patience for the dreaded lefty than for the perpetual whinging and judging of the right. but a righty that does not impose their politics on me in a social context is applying the law of "live and let live" and so on that basis i have respect for them.
