When America was formed, freedom of speech meant the right to speak the truth without fear from the strong arm of royalty and self serving law. It was not designed so people could act like a-holes toward each other, but rather to make sure truth was not censored by force, politics and games of subjectivity. PC censor uses the force of law, to restrict free speech as the precursor to censoring the truth. Original America was trying to get away from this. This change from the original common sense of the founding fathers, had to do with the feminization of culture; emotion over reason. This caused a regression backwards to what the colonists were getting away from. Say it is 1776, and the colonist complain about taxes and lack of representation. This is all objective truth, but it hurts the king's feelings that anyone should complain. He has the money already spent. Should logic and facts be ignored to spare his feelings? The king gets mad and will want to punish them for daring to spit in his face with facts. People knew this and were afraid to speak out since it could go looney. This is modern culture is a nutshell (full of whiney nuts). Say the king says the colonists are a bunch of hicks and don't deserve to vote and should pay more taxes. This hurts the feelings of the colonists, do the colonists have to take it, since the king can use his version of the liberal dual standard to enhance his power via censor? When President Obama first ran he was the Messiah and King. The Tea Party appears as a rebellion against taxation without representation since costs were going up such as with Obama-care even though the majority did not want it. The ground work for the regression back to the monarchy had been set by liberalism via the subjective censor of free speech. The Tea Party is not treated with facts and data, but only with subjectivity (bunch of kooks) designed to diminish their message. Censor is a direct function of a subjective standard. An objective standard has higher standard. Freedom of speech was not designed around subjectivity but an objective standard of truth. How would you define an objective standard which means the same for all?