What happens when an idealized individual freedom collides with concrete societal need? What happens when "freedom of speech" is used to spread lies, disinformation, and injure the fabric of a country? Is the point of freedom of speech because it leads to a freer people? Or is it for its own sake? If the former, what happens if it's shown that limiting freedom of speech by banning purposeful misinformation helps society as a whole?

I kind of think we're there. I'm an ethical utilitarian (well, mix in some contractualism) and I think generally what's best is what benefits the most people most of the time. Maybe that's limiting the voices of those who are trying to deceive people and breed hate.