What's stupid is not realizing that both are forms of free speech. You can "oppose" it, but trying to prevent it is an attack on the freedom of speech. Either you support free speech, and the right of the "angry mob" to be angry, or you don't support free speech.

But the fact that you can't distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat disqualifies you from this conversation, though. Obviously that's different, and you know that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting.

You're equivocating between two different things, hence my comment on dissonantly categorizing censorship as free speech. A comment on this site a few days ago mentioned the difference between "pro-speech" and "anti-speech" dissent. Someone who disagrees with a repugnant idea but supports free speech might, for example, allow the speaker of the repugnant thought a platform and the opportunity to defend their idea, in the understanding that this affordance will be reciprocated and the truth and repugnance of that idea revealed. Someone who does not, fundamentally, believe in free speech can instead choose to bar the speaker from airing their opinions in any way. Sometimes this involves "speaking," defined broadly. For example, showing up to an event where the speaker is bearing airhorns or calling in bomb threats/pulling the fire alarm. Demanding that platforms remove the speaker. Publishing private information to intimidate others to silence.

The first path supports free speech. The second uses the high regard that free speech has in many minds to attack free speech. It is using "free speech" not as an ideal that allows many ideas to compete in honest search for the truth, but rather as a cudgel to censor heresy. A free speech advocate can absolutely oppose such speech without being inconsistent in their beliefs. One might say, "Free speech is that which allows me to hear anyone's point of view, regardless of how offended or hurt others might be by them." The mob shouting a speaker down deprives the rest of us that right.

> distinguish between the expression of an angry idea and a death threat

So then you agree that a free speech supporter opposing death threats and harassment of people's friends and family of those who make offensive speech does not undermine their pro free speech opinions.

Yeah that's my entire point.

> the right of the "angry mob" to be angry

What the free speech supporters oppose is this angry mob sending death threats and harassing the friends, family, and coworkers of people who have made offensive speech.

So yes, people can both support free speech, and oppose the angry mob when they harass, dox, and threaten to kill people who say offensive things

> that isn't what anyone reasonable is suggesting.

"Canceling" someone very often involves sending death threats, doxxing, and harassing people's friends, family and coworkers, when the angry mob is involved.

So yes, that happens, and is what the pro free speech supporters are opposing.

But yes, I agree that the angry mob that harasses, doxes, and threatens people when it "cancels" someone is unreasonable, and is what the pro free speech people oppose.