[P]eople should have freedom of speech so that the government can't stop people from proposing and criticising ideas.
@DavidTitarenco in his answer to What is the intrinsic difference between freedom of speech and freedom of deeds? spoke of the harm principle
The thing is that freedom of speech and the right to freedom of speech has been challenged and fought for over the centuries, yet as far as I see it at the moment, freedom of speech is still not completely free when there are laws governing it, and some people in society including some government members twist what is said and use the laws to block the speech by using the harm principle regarding racism, xenophobia or any other prejudice.
The difference has been debated a lot, see Gomberg (1990) as an example.
I am not talking about libel and slander, plus I am not talking about freedom to commit physical violence against someone through organisations such as white supremacist groups. I am talking about the freedom to say what you think in order to challenge any particular status quo without physical violence.
So does freedom of speech really exist?