That's not even a functional thought
Back it up with something better if you can.
Anonymity has nothing to do with language definitions. You just ran out of arguments and can't crutch on ad hominem attacks to cover for your baseless argument. Whine about being wrong about the legal and philosophical definitions of free speech if you want, but expect to get called out for it here. Most of us had to pass elementary logic.
You are literally just stating an unfounded and arbitrary restriction in as an apparent rebuttal to the valid point that we define protected free speech as being free from prior restraint, not consequences, both legal and otherwise. Who posts pointing that out is irrelevant.
What else have you got?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
