Say it were implemented in this world and you could say anything you like (written, spoken, signed whatever) to anyone who can hear/read/see it. What kind of problems could that create and are there any ways to resolve them without limiting that absolute free speech?
Could it even create unsolvable logical errors? E.g an omnipotent god can’t create a stone too heavy for itself to lift. Maybe there are similar things with absolute free speech.
Technically speaking, that is practiced. Try as the Government may, they can’t censor free speech directed towards them or about them. By default that any attempt should they keep trying, is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, which something people horribly get wrong a lot of the time.
People will and have said a lot of shit around social media and to others freely. Because social media and the people they talk to, aren’t the government. But, which is another thing people are stupidly oblivious to, that what is said outside of that government scope, subjects them to be penalized. Such as being banned, being muted, being excommunicated, being brought to court and even be subjected to go to jail.
So for example, I have the free speech to tell X someone to go and kill themselves. They do so. So what does that do? Well, I just violated a cyberbullying law right there and I committed an act of murder remotely. And to addition to my would-be punishment, I’ve indirectly revoked my right to free speech.
Where I’m getting at or to just put it plainly, people need to be more moderate and regulated in how they practice their free speech and to whom. The part that nobody ever wants to confront or deal with, are the consequences about that free speech that it could bring to them. It’s a two way street, not one.
There’s really no realistic workaround to this.