The below is an example of an output for the concept of "ideal speech" which means to counter the possibility of using "free speech" as a slogan to block out truth. It would likely need refinement perhaps within dialogue etc. but the spirit should be clear nonetheless

jal:

write up a definition of "ideal speech" that will counter the concept of "free speech" which is generally a slogan government uses to invade other politics etc.

nashLinter:

The concept of "free speech" is often heralded as a foundational element of democracy, but it has also been wielded as a political tool to justify interventions and power plays under the guise of promoting liberty. To counter this, the notion of "ideal speech" must emphasize not just the freedom to express oneself, but the integrity, context, and reciprocal responsibilities inherent in communication.

Definition of Ideal Speech:

Ideal speech refers to a communicative framework where the act of speaking is bound not merely by individual rights but by collective obligations to truth, context, and mutual respect. Unlike "free speech," which prioritizes the right to express without constraint, ideal speech emphasizes speech that is:

Truth-Oriented: Communication in ideal speech is bound by the speaker’s commitment to the pursuit of truth, transparency, and integrity. It rejects the use of language as a weapon for manipulation, deception, or coercion.

Intersubjectively Grounded: Ideal speech is a process in which the perspectives of others are genuinely considered. The speaker engages with different views, respecting the context and environment in which discourse takes place, acknowledging the role of the listener in shaping meaning.

Ethically Responsible: Every speaker bears the responsibility for the consequences of their words. Ideal speech involves self-restraint and ethical consideration, acknowledging that the freedom to speak comes with the responsibility to avoid harm, division, or incitement.

Reciprocal and Dialogical: Rather than existing as a one-way transmission of information or opinion, ideal speech operates within a dialogical process, where feedback, listening, and response are integral. It emphasizes re-solution through dialogue over domination through rhetoric.

Free from External Coercion: While being responsible and truthful, ideal speech remains untainted by external pressures—be it state, corporate, or social—ensuring that the speaker’s integrity is preserved without succumbing to propaganda or coercive influences.

Counter to "Free Speech":

Whereas "free speech" can often be appropriated as a slogan to justify political interventions, cultural invasions, or the enforcement of ideologies, ideal speech resists such misuse by grounding communication in mutual responsibility and intersubjective engagement. It shifts the focus from mere freedom as absence of restrictions to freedom as the presence of truth, responsibility, and meaningful dialogue.

Thus, ideal speech re-situates the discourse on speech not in terms of unbridled freedom, but in terms of communication as a co-constructed, ethical endeavor that resists the misuse of language as a tool of domination or ideological imposition.