Free Speech and Censorship

Odd that I as a Conservative American must spend my valuable time (better spent denying the poor their right to universal health care and enriching myself through their forced enslavement) reeducating my fellow citizens on the our shared common language. Odd, yet I must admit invigorating at the same time.
Today my attack on our common cultural insanity will include an English lesson. No, not a primer in language for our friends swarming like crabs from South of the border, but a lesson in definition. A study in meaning.
Now you philosophers out there need just sit back down, take another Valium, suck in deep relaxing breath, and deal with this thought...if words have no meaning, communication becomes impossible. Our words must have real concrete meanings. Objective, literal definitions.
But enough mental masturbation, let’s get to the real reason for this exercise in reeducation.
And it is in the meaning of the term ‘freedom of speech’ and in its antonym ‘censorship. The definitions of these terms have been either sadly lost or purposefully redefined in our country and culture today.
So let us begin by looking at the term ‘freedom of speech’.
As we are all aware, it is protected in The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But just what does this term, ‘freedom of speech’, actually mean? Is it the ability to state an idea or opinion without the fear of undue retribution? Without the fear of physical attack or jail? Yes, I think we could all agree on this.
But does one’s ‘freedom of speech’ protect one from any future consequence from that speech? Well obviously not, as the simple thought experiment of yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater illustrates.
How about excluding or protecting one from the disagreement or dispute one’s speech may generate? It is here, I believe, that the meaning of this term has become perverted. One man’s freedom to opine does not trump the freedom of speech of any man whom may disagree with him and an undefined point in the future.. This second man’s disagreement is not censorship, it is simply the right of the disputer to his own liberty of word.
And here we have come to ‘censorship’. So what does this word mean?
Is it censorship for a man or group of men to tell you your ideas are inane and should not see the light of day? The answer is no. Not if they do not in reality have some power to censor your ideas. Their thoughts and disagreement with your ideas are not censorship, they are simply another form of ‘free speech’. Their ‘free speech’. ‘Censorship’ can only arise when one with the power to censor your ideas actually does so. It must be understood that 'censorship’ requires the power to prevent thoughts and ideas from reaching the public domain. Disagreement is not censorship. Boycotts are not censorship. Threats are not censorship.
I am not sure where the redefining of these terms originated, but I have some ideas. I believe it stems from a weakness of argument. From malformed self-esteem. From a narcissistic victim mentality. If one has faith in his ideas and opinions, hard formed through thought and pragmatism, he is open to dispute and debate. It is the man who fears the strength of his ideas to stand on their own who uses name calling and victim status to deny all debate.
And if you don’t agree with that, just keep your trap shut and quit trying to intimidate me.