Why would an ordinary person care if another person freedom of speech is restricted due to extreme political beliefs?

If the ordinary person agrees with the opinion, he could be concerned about his fate when expressing those same views, and would want to stand in solidarity with someone who shares his opinion.

However, even if the ordinary person does not agree with the extreme one, he should be concerned if his freedom of speech is restricted because it sets a precedent. In the United States, citizens have the right of freedom of speech, regardless of whether the opinions they express are popular or not. If this right is taken away from one person, nothing would prevent the government to take it away from others, when they have an unpopular or extreme opinion. Therefore, the normal citizen should care about it as a way to protect his own right to freedom of speech.

answer; i believe that the correct answer is ; the eastern and western churches spoke different languages;

the first two-party system consisted of the federalist party, who supported the ratification of the constitution, and the democratic-republican party or the anti-administration party (anti-federalists), who opposed the powerful central government, among others, that the constitution established when it took effect in