I disagree pretty strongly here. The data point I want to pick out are the existence of trolls: people who end up destroying enlightened discussion and replacing it with a bigot firefight.

There are many ways to reduce freedom of speech. One can be coerced, or one can be denied access to the time required to think of and say something useful. But there's another kind of denial -- when a conversation turns ugly, many types of speech simply disappear. /b/tards actively inhibit other types of conversation. So freedom of speech can't be axiomatic: it is internally inconsistent.

When the founding fathers penned the bill of rights, speech meant speech [edit: though, as pg has pointed out, they intended to include the printed word in their discussion.]. Not intrusive speech, and not published, internationally accessible works. They were not so clairvoyant as to see how powerful small publishing houses and studios could become.

One important type of freedom of speech I disagree with is that which impinges on someone else's freedom of speech. Everyone should have a place for their voice, but I am unwilling to protect any right to intrude.