"Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one's own antagonists." But not to ban them.

 

"[T]he substantive issues of the case [are] whether four blog posts Bradbury made on his site, 'The Daily Blog,' about O’Brien breached the Harmful Digital Communications Act. ... The details of the posts can still not be publicised. ... She [O'Brien] said she had never sought to 'prevent Martyn Bradbury from criticising my politics, opinions, or public work'."

~ STUFF: '‘Not a free speech absolutist’: FSU board member Ani O’Brien defends using legal action to take on high-profile blogger'

"Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government—and nothing else. ... Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one's own antagonists. [But not to have them banned.]"

“It's a curious post-modernist trend for laws to be created not to protect rights based on well-worn principles of individual rights and freedoms … but to 'prevent harm' - to have laws to sanitise life so that 'everyone' is protected."

~ Liberty Scott from his post' Harmful Digital Communications Act indeed'

"Q: What do you think of libel and slander laws?

"A: They are appropriate laws because the freedom of ideas does not permit you to lie about a particular person. Under the older interpretation of the courts, truth was your defense. If you knew something defamatory about some person, but it was true, then you have the right to say it. But today you can practically say anything, so long as your supposedly not motivated by malice. ... There are some standards, but they're not very clear, not very practical.

"This type of law is strictly to protect individuals; it has nothing to do with ideas. It is an issue of 'did you or did you not lie about some person and cause him damage'."

~ Ayn Rand from Ayn Rand Answers 

“New Zealand MPs are so keen to be seen to be 'doing something' about cyber-bullying that they are about to pass a poor piece of law that will do something terrible. If the  Harmful Digital Communications Bill passes, MPs who feel sad because of a media story can have the publisher [or blogger] jailed.” 

~ composite quote from 2015 from No Right Turn and Tim Watkin 

“[Given] that defamation would [otherwise] have applied ... [o]ne wonders whether the point of the [Harmful Digital Communications] Bill, in the view of some MPs, was to silence critics.”

~ Eric Crampton from his 2015 post 'Harmful Digital Communications and chilling effects'