I think I found your playlist.
But seriously, speech should never be restricted. Yes, there are legal consequences for defamation and slander but we shouldn’t stop idiots being able to voice their opinions. How else will we filter out the morons?
Yes it should because
1. Stable society argument.
Apart from defamation, slander.. see also perjury, misrepresentation. common assault, contract law, menacing, libel, treason, endangerment etc etc
2. Moral society argument
In short 'fairness' and the fact that speech can be skewed to target groups.
3. Civil society argument
Contempt of cop - Wikipedia
4. Consequences argument
Speech can be punished.
I'm at work so that will have to do for now.. I'm not even sure what I have to point this out. Most people self-sanction themselves all the time so this is no secret.
People get confused by paying attention to words not meanings, even as Shake-a-spear pointed out several centuries ago with this 'roses' that labels are not the things but are only proxies.
--
There is a direct connection between what people hear and what they think.
What they think determines how they act.
Society draws the line where speech starts to cause 'damage'.
If we were all autists then it wouldn't matter but we are not and so it does.
I will never be for restricted speech because that list will only get longer and longer.
You already are.