 Why do we ban physical force? What is the demonstration of physical force? Because speech is not physical force. Speech does not be punching you in the face. Why have all, since the Enlightenment, all thinkers agreed, at least the Enlightenment thinkers, that physical force should be banned? And that's the job of the government. Trying the job of the government is to protect us from people who would use physical force against us. What's different about force? Force is the one thing that can destroy a capacity to think, to reason, to discover truth. When Galileo was put down at house arrest, what was his motivation to do more thinking, to discover more truth? Zero. He was now being penalized for using his mind. When somebody puts a gun to your back and says, from now on, you must live with the idea that two plus two equals five. And if you don't, I will shoot you. You can't think. This is why, by the way, three countries, countries in which we have freedom, advance technologically, advance economically, advance from the perspective of innovation, much more than authoritarian countries, because to discover new technologies, to discover new truths, people must be free to use their mind as they see fit. Otherwise, we stagnate. Otherwise, we die. Violence is the antithesis of reason. To defend reason, to defend the human mind means to reject violence. Speech is not violent. I can tell you nonsense. Some of you might think I'm saying it right now. I can talk nonsense, and you can ignore it. You don't have to pay attention. There's no way I can impose my nonsense onto your mind. You have to choose whether I'm saying something that's right or not, whether what I'm saying is true or false. There's no way I can impose my ideas on you. The same way I can impose my fists on you. So there is a fundamental difference between violence, which indeed needs to be banned from society, and speech which cannot and should never be banned in a society.