>The belief that free speech must have limits is necessarily equivalent with the belief that a large part of the people are stupid and they must be protected by the smart people by preventing them to hear anything that might influence their feeble minds and make them act in a wrong way.
I don't see why this is true; intelligent people can be harmed by speech just as much as stupid people can. Everyone can certainly be harmed by the immediate follow-on effects of speech. Some words can harm in a way it is unreasonable to expect guard against, or those for which it is impossible to guard against.
The scholarly literature on speech, harm, and legality has dozens of such examples.
>but I do not see any of the advocates of limiting free speech having the courage to tell
I can courageously say now that I'm not in favor of restrictions on speech for reasons of "stupidity" but rather the demonstrable harm speech can cause.
I don't see why this is true; intelligent people can be harmed by speech just as much as stupid people can. Everyone can certainly be harmed by the immediate follow-on effects of speech. Some words can harm in a way it is unreasonable to expect guard against, or those for which it is impossible to guard against.
The scholarly literature on speech, harm, and legality has dozens of such examples.
>but I do not see any of the advocates of limiting free speech having the courage to tell
I can courageously say now that I'm not in favor of restrictions on speech for reasons of "stupidity" but rather the demonstrable harm speech can cause.