psychological profile of absolute free speech

[http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (Robert)]

I was curious about definitions of free speech.  I asked Brave's Leo AI
about it, and references Nadine Strossen who was a lawyer for the ACLU.
Below is what it said.

Nadine Strossen identifies as an "absolutist," but clarifies this does not
mean speech is always protected.

Her position, as revealed in her own words, is that speech can be
restricted only if it promotes a "countervailing goal of compelling
importance" that cannot be achieved in any other way.  This is an
extremely high legal bar, but it explicitly allows for exceptions, such as
speech that constitutes true threats, harassment, or incitement to
imminent violence.

Therefore, the psychological inclination is not toward a logically
incoherent "absolute" protection, but rather toward a presumption of
liberty.  Supporters like Strossen apply a rigorous, high standard of
scrutiny to any proposed speech restriction, demanding overwhelming
justification based on demonstrable, imminent harm, while fiercely
protecting the right to express even offensive or "wrongheaded" ideas.
This aligns with the previously mentioned traits of high cognitive ability
and intellectual humility, now framed as a principled, legally-grounded
defense of open discourse with very narrow, well-defined exceptions.