Free speech already have limitations (and they are good)
Free speech already has limits, and most people agree they are necessary. Few would defend the right to falsely accuse someone of a crime or engage in defamation, especially when imagining themselves as the target. These restrictions have existed for a long time without undermining democracy. Similar restrictions could also be applied to extreme opinions considered seriously harmful.
False criminal accusation works as a limit because it is precise and verifiable; broad bans on “extreme speech” are not. In many countries, defamation has expanded well beyond serious harm, chilling legitimate speech. This is the real problem: limits only work when they are extremely narrow and applied case by case. If even defamation is often overused, extending the same logic to “extreme opinions” would be far worse. What counts as extreme is vague, unstable, and easily shaped by whoever holds power, turning restrictions into tools against inconvenient views.