There's another problem. There isn't anything I could conceivably say about anything that isn't going to offend someone if the crowd is large enough. So you might say, well, if you're talking to two people, you can't offend one of them. So you don't get to offend 50% of the population. It's like, okay, let's say I'm talking to a thousand people. And one person finds what I'm saying offensive. Say, well, that's hateful. It's like, well, that's one in a thousand. So should I stop? What if it's one in ten thousand or one in a million? Like, where's the cutoff? And you might think, well, we'll work that out. It's like, no, you don't get it. The devil's in the details. You work it out now when you formulate your restrictions on free speech. You don't shunt that off into the future so that it's a problem that'll be solved. Who defines hate? Insoluble problem. Don't regulate it. Because you can't define it. That's how it looks to me. So you have the free marketplace of ideas, so to speak, where the collective can render a judgment on the acceptability of an idea on an ongoing basis.