Classical Liberalism

[Violet]

In another manner of speaking, everybody always had the freedom of speech. Only that some were butchered, burnt at the stake, stoned, etc. when they did that. Yet, because "freedom" mostly (or always) refers to what others allow you to do, many people in many places had not and now have not the "freedom" to speak contrary to the religion of the land (because they were & are killed if they did/do that).

It's only a colloquial use of freedom.

Actually I believe it sets in immediately: once the majority sees their beliefs everywhere. There needn't be a guy shown on TV declaring that "most people believe X". Also, the spirit of the crowd is strictly related to leaders: you have a leader that is idolized by people (by most), and then, whatever that leader declares, the majority (his fans/worshipers) believe and apply, and they also despise, hate and even kill the minorities that do not idolize that leader and do not do the things the majority does.

They have to recognize it before it sets in, so it takes at least that long.

If they can harm you if you are honest with everything and talking to everybody as to your close friends, then it means that you are being restricted the freedom of speech by the people around you.

Or you restrict yourself, which many of us do. We can't speak because we won't speak, only if we would could we.

Metaphorically speaking... you know, lion = strong, fearful, leader; fox = uses tricks and stuff, is cunning. By the way, that saying belongs to Niccolò Machiavelli (if you were curios).
And "inspire fear" does not mean "to everybody", but to those that hate you only. For instance, a king can be loved by his friends and by the people and feared by his enemies (they think thrice before attempting anything).

I taught Machiaveli, and that's so like him I've always been the literalist though

Yeah, and even in anarchy the freedom is restricted - and what kind of "freedom" is that, which is restricted?

No freedom at all.

I know, and that's the BIG problem. Tolerance will always and only be when people are the same - which is done by indoctrination, extermination of the minorities, etc. and minorities (which are different) will ALWAYS appear. So "tolerance" is yet another foolish dream: there can never be tolerance among people. You always tolerate people that do the things that you agree with, and there are always things you do not agree with, so you are always intolerant to people that do things that you do not agree with.

The reverse can happen though, where similar things are taken to be a challenge to one's position. I don't care what different jobs you have or what all you can manage... so long as you are not taking mine from me

I am not free to butcher the lot of them. BUT, if there was a button that, if pressed, would destroy the whole earth with all of its inhabitants, and I would be physically capable of pushing it, then I would have the freedom to kill everybody (but, as about them, they would not have the freedom to live, in this way). But, as things are currently, I cannot say that "I do not have the freedom to kill everybody", because it's improper. The correct words are "I'm incapable of killing everybody".

And that panda was not free to eat, because he was not allowed by his 'master' (his master could have denied it from him any time he wanted).

You kidding? He kicked his master's ass for that last dumpling. Afterwards he says "I'm not hungry", which is significant if you've watched the movie.

Your inability to kill everyone belies your lack of freedom to do so. You cannot because you will not.