A notion that needs to be challenged: that "freedom of speech" is a "right"? Where exactly did that notion come from? That's up there with the notion that everyone has the "right" to pursue "happiness". Is it now? Is everyone entitled to be "happy"? Both of those notions are enshrined in Western philosophy. But just because they are such does not make them absolutes in the natural scheme of things. Both of these are human constructs and it just so happens that we live in societies that have woven these notions into the very fabric of their thinking.
No doubt to be "free" and "happy" are nice things to have. But to see them as "rights" is an artificial notion ingrained in our heads by generations of ambient messages -- the victory of the "allies" in World War II, the Cold War, wars against "terror" and stuff like that. All noble ideals of course. But artificial constructs just the same. By saying these are absolutes, people frame their thinking using a very small subset of humanity's vast range of philosophies (in the process progressively imprisoning themsleves into ever convoluted dogmatic frameworks). Western philosophy just happens to be the philosophy we live by. But that does not necessarily mean it is the only one.
So let us all think carefully before we make any assertions about any "absolutes". Doing so is the height of intellectual hubris and the mark of wannabe "philosophers" who have swallowed other people's thinking right off the shelf hook line and sinker.
[This post is based on a comment made in the article "Do Filipinos know how to use their freedom of speech?" published on Get Real Post.]