I should point out that I haven't read the article and am arguing about a concept, not anything that's been said in the article itself. If I'm missing some crucial details that the article touches upon, I apologize for my ignorance.

Which, it seems like, I should, given that we seem to be talking about two different aspects of what freedom of speech is: you're talking about it from a legal, legislative perspective while I talk about it from a more general, ideal perspective.

This is not very relevant. You're saying that anything is possible so the word never has no meaning in any context. <..> It doesn't really affect the current discussion because if you can't foresee how it would happen, you can't really change the concept enough to have it make a difference.

Perhaps, you're right. While I do still foresee human development still going up from this point, I don't have anything in particular to give to the situation but my idealistic vision. We see the idea of consensus differently; I imply that everyone agrees upon a point, not merely the majority. Is it idealistic? Most definitely. Can we achieve that at the moment? Most definitely not. I do believe, however, that as humanity develops as civilized society (or whatever better shape it might take), there might become minds and tools available for us to make such a fundamental shift in paradigm.

This is the point I'm arguing from. I understand that it will not serve the immediately visible differences and the divide currently present on the subject, but I think it's a vision to strive towards, no matter what the present holds.