even where there are those in the world that, misguidedly, seek to curtail it for others. 

Time magazine

At its most fundamental level, free speech is our natural right to express ourselves, consistent with the equal rights of others to do so. Protecting this right respects the moral dignity of individuals as reasoning, autonomous beings with their own ideas, beliefs and values. This means that speech should not be restricted, even when we think it is wrong or dangerous. When we vociferously disagree with someone and willingly engage them in a dialogue, we actually reveal our deepest respect for their dignity as reasoning beings.

Why we need a free speech law to stop Trump-style legal threats

In his book "TrumpNation," reporter Timothy O'Brien estimated that real estate mogul and now-presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump was vastly overstating his net worth. In response, Trump sued O'Brien for libel and sought $5 billion in damages. While the courts ultimately dismissed the case for lacking merit, Trump said that he knew the lawsuit would fail but sued anyway. "I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I'm happy about." Trump is not alone in using lawsuits, or the threat of lawsuits, to silence critics. Indeed, this has become such a problem in the United States that it is time for Congress to intervene, so that the court system does not merely become a tool to silence free speech among those who would speak out against powerful individuals and businesses.

This type of legal maneuver — known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation(SLAPP) — often occurs when defendants have no legal mechanism to ensure that frivolous lawsuits are swiftly dismissed. Faced with time and the attorneys' fees involved in defending against a SLAPP, the easier path for a defendant is often to retract his or her statement, even if it is 1. Therefore, SLAPPs undermine free speech and harm the public interest, giving those with more time and resources an upper hand against public criticism. By creating a federal law, policymakers could ensure an equal footing for defendants and plaintiffs in the court system, so deep pockets do not create an unleveled playing field.

SLAPPs come in many forms. In an infamous case, Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington football team, sued the Washington City Paper over an unflattering article in an attempt to get it taken down. Snyder's lawyer wrote a letter to the paper saying, "We presume that defending such litigation would not be a rational strategy for [a company] such as yours. Indeed, the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper."

SLAPPs are not only directed at journalists. As the internet has permeated all aspects of our economy, users have created millions of new posts on social media and e-commerce websites to share their opinions and feedback. Here, too, SLAPPs threaten legitimate speech. For example, a legal threat from a restaurant or hotel would discourage its customers from candidly giving online feedback on a platform like Yelp or TripAdvisor, and that would mean that consumers would lack valuable information they need to make better marketplace decisions.

Judge again dismisses lawsuit against fracking opponents.(Butler, PA)

The fracking foes claimed the litigation was a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP suit, meant to silence their opposition and free-speech rights. The judge agreed.

The Economist

So it is worth spelling out why free expression is the bedrock of all liberties. Free speech is the best defence against bad government. Politicians who err (that is, all of them) should be subjected to unfettered criticism. Those who hear it may respond to it; those who silence it may never find out how their policies misfired. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, has pointed out, no democracy with a free press ever endured famine.....Never try to silence views with which you disagree. Answer objectionable speech with more speech. Win the argument without resorting to force. And grow a tougher hide.

ACLU sues RNC over freedom of speech rights (freedom of speech zones) 

The unprecedented campaign against freedome of speech (Hill)

If Americans — individually or acting together through nonprofits, businesses or labor unions — cannot voice their views on public policy and elected officials, then the democratic process as we know it is dead. The result is a system that makes those already in power even more powerful; incumbents need not fear having those pesky voters learn about their statements, views and voting records.

Raging Bitch Beer

“We don’t like…arbitrary authoritarianism,” he remarked. “The market should decide. If they don’t like our beer or our names, they can choose not to buy it. We do believe that freedom of speech is the last defense against tyranny.”

Erin Weston, Flying Dog’s director of communications, agreed with Caruso’s sentiments, saying the company strongly advocates for Americans’ rights to free expression.

“Whether you agree with it or not—as Americans, we have the right to say it,” she said. “Just because it might be offensive to you, or offensive to somebody that you know—that doesn’t take away that person’s right to be able to express that.”