Why is it ridiculous? The parent-poster suggested he keep his work private to avoid copyright infringement. In fact, the owner should not view potential infringement as any threat to his ability to exercise his freedom of speech (e.g. display his work).
Because the main thing copyright does is curtail speech. Your argument can be rephrased as "The creator should feel comfortable using his freedom of speech to display his work in public because nobody else has the freedom of speech to display his work in public." Positive freedom of speech is clearly not the issue here.
It's a totally flawed use of freedom of speech anyway. Freedom to speak does not mean freedom from consequences. (Especially when it comes to people quoting you.)
It's simple. Every original work is a form of speech. Reproduction and retransmission, that's speech too. Copyright places restrictions on this. That's pretty much the only thing it does. The words you use, the sounds you make, these have to abide by copyright.
I'm not saying that makes copyright bad. Laws against fraud also work by curtailing speech. But I think it's a reasonable description.
You are wrong on the facts, about how laws against fraud work.
At least in America, courts only hear actual and not hypothetical controversies. Judges also do not grant a priori restraints on speech very often or very lightly. Laws against fraud criminalize (and preclude 1st amendment protection for speech implementing) dishonesty in certain contexts. But they do not restrain it by punishing the speech itself.
You've lost me. I never said the restrictions were a priori censorship. You can make the speech, and then you will be punished after based on it violating the law. And what do you mean by "punishing the speech itself"? Does "speech itself" mean the existence of speech or the contents of speech? If the former, I never claimed that, if the latter, they do punish that.
