On absolute free speech

In order to believe in absolute free speech, you must believe in absolute bodily autonomy. I don't think anyone believes in absolute bodily autonomy, not even AnCaps.

Okay you are asking a lot of separate questions here so I'll have to do some unpacking.

For example, is having children immoral, since they don't consent to being born?

No, as you only have rights under the qualifications of being alive. This means that past the point of conception (I don't care to argue when specifically this point is as it is irrelevant to the argument), you are a life which is the necessary trait as to be in possession of individual rights.

This however does not relieve responsibility as you are putting someone unwillingly into a state of danger. This means that one is obligated to make restitution for such violence as to make the party whole until they can reasonably provide for themselves. This is a lot of the basis of the justification for child neglect laws that no one really disputes to.

Are sound waves travelling through the air infringements on bodily autonomy?

To a degree however restitution for the infringement is only as reasonable as is the perceived damages of said infringement.

If you believe in sound pollution, you should be against free speech, at least on private property.

Because it isn't the speech that isn't being regulated. It's the actual damages caused due to the sound produced I supposed is the simple answer.

Maybe public property like roads or something are another story, but that just seems hypocritical, since the only way to fund government which protects free speech is through taxing people and therefore violating their bodily autonomy and therefore invalidating the whole argument for absolute free speech to begin with

Correct

> For example, is having children immoral, since they don't consent to being born?

Children do consent to being born. They (sperm) compete for the opportunity to reach the egg and the chance to attain life. That's adaptive or hard-wired evolutionary consent. The

the only way to fund government which protects free speech is through taxing people

Not true. A system of governance can be entirely voluntarily funded.

'Free speech' is a cultural value. I believe it's best understood as a label for a sentiment like "the unpopularity of an opinion is not grounds to silence its expression".

NB. This doesn't imply a conviction about the existence of any *right* to express an opinion in any given form/venue.

Give me something more specific, what is your line, because I can talk to you about yelling fire in a movie theater, but not suppression of political speech.

Also we could make taxes voluntary, if you still think I'm some sort of hypocrite.