depends on the "allowing", however, it does give you the right to express your views and opinions in public, in some jurisdictions the freedom of speech has been interpreted super widely, giving the right to walk nude in the public etc.
no
The USSR tried the idea of Glasnost to allow its people more freedom of speech.
To allow others to express themselves to the public.
because they allow you to express yourself
No. Hitler did not let freedom of speech in their country because the Nazis took over Germany's government and made Germany a communist country so they were not allowed to have freedom of speech.
freedom of speech can sometimes allow people to express their views that others may consider to be offensive or provocative and incite violence or unrest.
Reducing the number of weapons available in the world
it was the first state to prohibit slavery
One problem with the sedition act was that it limited the freedom of speech for people. It didn't allow people to say anything bad about the country or the government.
it lets people speak their mind to be assertive and to be their own person.
Is virtual freedom of speech the same of freedom of speech in other media outlets
An example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy in a logical argument is when someone argues that if we allow people to have freedom of speech, then they will start saying harmful and dangerous things, so we should not allow freedom of speech at all.