I was talking about how things at some point thought to be impossible are possible now thanks to the development of humanity. My point is that humanity has progressed and continues to do so, therefore it's not impossible for us to reach a better state of affairs, even, as I pointed out to someguyfromcanada, it won't happen, during our lifetime.

If there is a consensus about what people can say, then speech is that much less free because the majority is impinging on the minority who might choose to say it.

This isn't what freedom of speech is. The majority of people despises racist exclamations from white supremacists' rallies without that despisal being considered an offence on the freedom of speech. The majority of people doesn't like to talk about death or dying, yet thanatology is considered a valuable field of medical science and not in any way immoral in the way it freely discusses dying as a natural mechanism of organic life.

The choice to "say it" has to come from some set of rules - one that many of us learn from early age and others (ones incapable of grasping such topics intuitively) are restricted from because it's a taboo to talk about. Best it come from a consensus, meaning people agree to not say something on their own accord: that way, rules are clear and no one is offended by being excluded from making such a choice, therefore less likely to break the rules.

It is wrong to try to set control over what's allowed to say because it restricts one's personal autonomy. It is, however, not wrong for people to agree to restrict themselves of something for a good reason.