I understand all that, and agree. Separately, I'm saying that labeling people on one side of this issue as "against free speech" is a common quip, and is also toxic. It's similar to labeling pro-choice people as pro-murder.
I expect people on Twitter to fall into that hole, and I don't engage with Twitter for that reason. I have more respect for HN users. For example, the sibling to this reply refers to me, saying "These people are a lost cause. They cannot be convinced of the value of free speech." I'd like to keep sentiments like that at bay here, and I have hope for that (see the fact that the comment I'm referring to is dead).
Ah, I see now. Sorry I didn't understand that when I replied. On re-reading your comment, that is on me. You were clear.
Sorry if that term offends I didn't realize it did.
Here we don't have "Free Speech." As such, we have freedom of expression in our bill of rights. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." So to use the term "Free Speech" in New Zealand can be seen as an attempt to advocate for an American version of free speech. Many are actively against that.
That said, I'm sure many simply want to place new boundaries on speech and feel the result still maintains free speech. To them, I can see how it would be offensive to be accused of being against free speech.
Also, thank you for your willingness to get to the bottom of this. You have opened my eyes to how my comment could have been read. HN is a much better environment.
I've had great discussions with friends and family that disagree with me on free speech.
On Twitter people don't seem to treat each other as people, but as representatives of a given ideology.