What supersedes what?

Consider two phenomena that are often at odds with each other: Public Safety versus Freedom of Speech, in particular, of the negative Dark Free Speech (DFS) variety.  Probably the most famous example of all is someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, where there is no fire. Nope, no can do.  It threatens the public’s safety. 

Keeping beloved freedoms and keeping the greater society safe is a difficult challenge for democracies. How to find the right balance?  Much like Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle, you often end up losing one at the expense of gaining the other.  

So, I think we have to ask ourselves, Do “the needs of the many (public safety) outweigh the needs of the few (freedom to perpetuate DFS such as uncorroborated conspiracy theories and propagating misinformation) … or the one (It’s All About Me Syndrome™️),” if a democratic society is to remain intact?

Questions:

- To your way of thinking, what ultimately supersedes what?  Public safety or freedom of speech? How do you draw that difficult line?  Give details and examples.  

- If public safety is your priority, what is the best way to implement that? How do we force public safety on resistors? (Impose fines which won’t solve the problem? Other?)

- If freedom of speech is your priority, how do we keep the greater public safe from harmful speech? (Regulate it, and if so, by whom? Other?)