Here in the United States, for example, people who express unpopular opinions are often attacked and punished not by the government but by the public itself. People sometimes share their unpopular opinions on social media, and other people end up condemning them or even verbally attacking the original poster. Some abusers even share the original post with friends so that their friends can join in the harassment. Because of this the original post can even go viral and the original poster can become a pariah on the Internet. Sometimes they endure daily harassment for weeks. Other times they even lose their jobs and receive death threats for their opinions. While this is not the usual example of a government restricting free speech, I believe it still qualifies. The majority opinion in society sometimes goes out of its way to trample on the minority opinion. Some ethical theories would approve of this type of behavior, such as act utilitarianism, because the happiness of the majority would outweigh the unhappiness of the minority. Most, however, would condemn this type of behavior as unethical. Attackers don't treat people as ends in themselves or with good intentions as Kantianism requires, and if this were turned on people of the majority opinion, they would no doubt be upset, so rule utilitarianism doesn't support it either. Virtue ethics would describe this as unethical because of the unkindness it entails