All attempts to parse free speech fall at the first hurdle of authorities not wanting to admit that supporting free speech means allowing holocaust denial and racism.

The real failure is to understand that you are free to say something but that something may have consequences.

Because, for example, a university has a duty of care to its students it may not want a racist antisemitism teaching those students.

What I find odd is people who think it wrong to set out standards of speech behaviour - for example through adopting recognised definitions of racism such as the IHRA on antisemitism.

This does not deny free speech. You can still be a racist.

The problematic thing underneath a the free speech problems - and much of the so-called "woke" agenda - isn't free speech but legally enforceable definitions of equalities that suppress free speech.

If you can go to jail for speech (and you can) that is an abuse of free speech

The problem is the equalities act not whether free speech is "enforced".

Everybody knows this is the problem but nobody dare admit it for fear of the powerful groups that police that equalities act as well as the degree to which it is embedded within legal and HR managements

This isn't an argument against equalities legislation but rather an argument for better such laws - ones that recognise speech as protected in a way that actions aren't.

The government should not be allowed to lock you up - give you a criminal record - for being racist (or sexist or homophobic of anti-trans) but your employer should be entitled - given clearly.stated standards - to discipline you for these things.