On the other hand: “To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed”
How is that an 'on the other hand'?
“How is that an ‘on the other hand’?”
The article stated: “Freedom of speech is freedom from persecution by the state and no more.”
I disagree with the “no more” part. I disagree that freedom of speech is no more than freedom from persecution by the state, that the state has no other role. I believe the state also has a role in securing free speech against those who would persecute it.
So on the one hand, the state should refrain from persecuting free speech and on the other hand it should secure free speech.
Free speech does not cover bearing false witness, slander, libel, using profanity in the home of someone else when they say not to, graffiti on the property of someone else when they don’t want it, standing in the middle of a county Republican HQ shouting support for Democrats, driving through a bedroom community at 2AM promoting something with a loudspeaker, and any number of other things. Those things may be “persecuted” so to speak.
And I am equating “free speech” with “the right to free speech”. Also, I consider “the right to free speech” an unalienable right since almost all of us are born with the ability regardless of when or where and speech is used in the pursuit of happiness.